One thing we can all agree on - if he’d just admired Hugo Chavez or Bobby Sands instead, you’d not have mentioned it.
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
One thing we can all agree on - if he’d just admired Hugo Chavez or Bobby Sands instead, you’d not have mentioned it.
High quality whataboutism.
What is there about it that bothers you?
Whether its the Northern Power House or leveling up, I am saying outbid the Tories in every respect and be loud about doing so or Labour won't get any where near govt. Northern voters have voted Labour for generations and in power or out of it Labour has let them down. I think that those votes will have to be bought back now.
What bothers me about it is that whenever government tries to implement such policies, they are usually ill thought out and end up badly done and costing far more than the actual benefit.
Manchester for example has achieved spectacular growth without the government specific intervention.
And it is the term 'the north'. What does it actually mean. Is it the top third of the country?
And what about the South West. Is it going to be adversely affected because of the focus on the so called north?
If you follow market forces, as the Tories do, shouldn't market forces drive the Northern Powerhouse?
Reason it needs levelling up is because it has been neglected for years by successive London/South centric governments. Many places in the North have not had anywbere near the level of investment per capita as equivalent areas in the South or near London.
As are lots of other areas of the UK. So why just focus on the 'north'.
The problem with that argument is that govt spending isn't driven by market forces but does prime private investment. So spending 15 - 20 billion on cross rail will bring several times the investment from the private sector.
You can argue as Thatcher did that there is no point in regional development and let them rot but I think that is short sighted nonsense and leads directly to Brexit for example.
As to why the North. If you divide the country into north and south then its pretty clear which is in need of investment. If you divide it into smaller regions then I am all for the poorest areas getting proportionately more spent on them whether in the North or South. It is just that we are talking about former Northern Labour seats and how the labour party wins them back which they need to do. If this drive to level up the North in the North South divide sets a precedent for regional development it is all good.
Not that I live there, but what about the Midlands. Is that in the north or south.
I am all for equality. But quite honestly I get fed up when people talk in vague terms about this country; the north.... Because it completely ignores other equally important and needy parts.
It is not "just focus on the North", it is give some focus to the North because the South has already had lots of focus and will continue to do so.
Strangely, this conversation reminds me of the "black lives matter" rational.
Either way, the North has been disproportionately impacted by lack of funding over many decades. It is a clear (ish) dividing line. But no dividing line is perfect.
Below is an older map (ore economic crash!) showing gross disposable income, which is one way to analyse the disparities. I'm sure you can find more up to date data if needed.
Last edited:
It is not "just focus on the North", it is give some focus to the North because the South has already had lots of focus and will continue to do so.
Strangely, this conversation reminds me of the "black lives matter" rational.
Either way, the North has been disproportionately impacted by lack of funding over many decades. It is a clear (ish) dividing line. But no dividing line is perfect.
Below is an older map (ore economic crash!) showing gross disposable income, which is one way to analyse the disparities. I'm sure you can find more up to date data if needed.
Good illusion of how you should not divide the country into just north and south..
How've you worked that out? The trend on the disposable income map is quite clear.
Starmer been about as useful as a chocolate teapot in pressuring the government to keep schools safe.
Luckily pressure from teachers, unions and London boroughs has made some impact, yet another government u turn.
But what about schools in tier 4 outside of London? Why is it one rule for London but a different rule elsewhere?
All London primary schools to remain closed for start of term in government U-turn
It is the latest in a string of U-turns performed by Education Secretary Gavin Williamson's department.
https://news.sky.com/story/all-lond...r-start-of-term-in-government-u-turn-12177017
Luckily pressure from teachers, unions and London boroughs has made some impact, yet another government u turn.
But what about schools in tier 4 outside of London? Why is it one rule for London but a different rule elsewhere?
All London primary schools to remain closed for start of term in government U-turn
It is the latest in a string of U-turns performed by Education Secretary Gavin Williamson's department.
https://news.sky.com/story/all-lond...r-start-of-term-in-government-u-turn-12177017
But what do you mean by' levelling up'? And what do you mean by investment?
I'm not trying to be obtuse or obstructive, I'm genuinely unsure what this policy is intended to do, or how you know whether it's worked.
Same for me.
If it is simply public expenditure per head then that is understandable. But in that case, it has to apply to the whole country, not just the so called North.
The only sustainable way that I can see you can make a region richer - if that's what levelling up is supposed to mean - is having loads of high quality, competitive businesses operating there within their own ecosystem. Govt can encourage that - and have been trying to do so for years - but they can't magic it. It's why the govt would rather build infrastructure in London or the South East for example - because you more predictably get a better return from building on something that's already there and working.
The theory behind HS2 was it'd enable businesses to relocate from London, further North - a sort of levelling up - but as likely IMO is it'd suck the money from northern regional centres as London turned them into commuter towns.
Levelling up is probably just another slogan to Boris, but it is a worthy ideal if he or anybody else could pull it off: The UK is apparently one of the worst in the developed world in terms of regional imbalance according to this analysis by the IFS.
As much as I think he's a spineless wanker, I do hope he wakes up from his coma soon.
No ifs, no buts...
That is the decision that has to be made by govt, to be precise it has to stop loading transport infrastructure and R+D spending towards London and south east because it increases income disparity and leaves areas with no future as they will never get the same amount of money per person as it is finite and the biggest share will always be taken by the already most successful areas which will then attract away from the other regions a disproportionate amount of private investment.
So for example cross rail 2 built in London during the banking crisis recession. Meanwhile the Leeds super tram got cancelled along with large chunks of the City center flood prevention scheme because the govt said it didn't have the money. The result is a cap on the growth of Leeds and after the city center flooded higher insurance cost and a reluctance to invest in that area.
Its not just about those spending areas either. When you stop national pay agreements in favour of regional ones as Osbourne did you save money for Health services nationally by draining pay packets in the poorest areas. Or look at council spending on local health services and the council block grant. Or look at the debacle during covid on the different attitude when Manchester versus London asks for money to compensate for being shut down.
We watch the 5 billion London sewer system upgrade, the new electrical grid to enable charging for electrical vehicles, a third runway at Heathrow and the billions and billions that will be spent on the road and rail link capacity increases to service it and dream about similar investment in you know us. How is the Olympic Park these days is it nice, the new Wembley Stadium.
Whole new industries are going to have to be built when we move away from oil and gas lets think long term about where we locate those and spread the love a little.
On the HS2 point. What else were we offered ? Its take the new faster railway to London or feck all investment because cross rail 3 will show a higher return right?
Still radio silence from Starmer on schools returning tomorrow.
Not supporting teachers or unions trying to protect teachers, children and by implication, the wider community from more Covid outbreaks.
All this after whipping Labour MPs to vote for the Tories terrible Brexit deal.
Do we even have an opposition?
Not supporting teachers or unions trying to protect teachers, children and by implication, the wider community from more Covid outbreaks.
All this after whipping Labour MPs to vote for the Tories terrible Brexit deal.
Do we even have an opposition?
Im getting really frustrated with him tbh, really believed he would actually provide something. His strategy is obviously to just do absolutely nothing for the next few years since nothing will happen because of him or not anyway until its closer to the next election. Just wish hed have a bit more spine, I don't understand
I think many are. I do understand his strategy of stay quiet until closer to an election. But standing aside on so many critical issues is not a good look.
By the time the election comes round no one will know what he truly stands for, trust in him will be low and the media will paint him as "Abstain Starmer" with ease.
He could end up being less electable than his predecessor. Which is blasphemy to many posters on here!
Who knows... perhaps he's trying to win an election instead of putting in the worst performance since ww2?... I mean that does seem a pretty sound starting point because as jezbollah proved you can't achieve much in opposition (besides turning a once proud anti racist party into an anti semitic cespit)
He seems very bad at the things he is trying to do and I don't support the things he's trying to do. So, I cannot really get excited about him. He neither has the skills to destroy the left nor those required to be the electable centrist he was meant to be. He offers neither hope nor a threat to anyone. He is a complete waste of time.
Anyone remember IDS?
He may win the next election, it's so far away no one knows. You cant do anything in opposition in the UK correct. I take issue with a few things though, like his recent comments about May.
Not convinced that Starmer, or Labour in general, is capitalising on the Covid handling shambles here.
With schools still open, obviously.
Unless the government later decide that's the right decision, in which case we of course support it.
Political satire writers would never get away with inventing a character as comically pointless as Starmer.
He's a worthless sack of shit. Close the zoos!
The last six months has basically been the Thick of It episode where Nicola Murray decides to agree with two unpopular government policies and then the government u turns on them.
Blair today said it didn't really matter whether Labour voted for or against or abstained on the Brexit trade deal.
“I would have backed the leader on this. I mean, look, it’s a tactical question for the Labour party because the problem is … it’s open to your opponents to say that if you don’t back the deal, then you’re voting for no deal.
“I would have backed the leader on it. Look, there was a case for abstaining and there was a case for … voting for it because the alternative’s no deal.”
He added: “I don’t think it particularly matters to the Labour party either way. I think what does matter is that we’re still in a position where we’re pointing out what the problems with this deal are.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...oted-for-boris-johnson-post-brexit-trade-deal
“I would have backed the leader on this. I mean, look, it’s a tactical question for the Labour party because the problem is … it’s open to your opponents to say that if you don’t back the deal, then you’re voting for no deal.
“I would have backed the leader on it. Look, there was a case for abstaining and there was a case for … voting for it because the alternative’s no deal.”
He added: “I don’t think it particularly matters to the Labour party either way. I think what does matter is that we’re still in a position where we’re pointing out what the problems with this deal are.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...oted-for-boris-johnson-post-brexit-trade-deal
He's dog shit. Honestly one of the most loathsome Labour politicians I've ever come across.
So it seems like the Tories will be closing schools on the day Starmer's Labour detailed that their proposed lockdown rules would keep them open.
Cannot make it up.
Cannot make it up.
How very electable.
If he doesn't try to unite the Labour party and accept that the political landscape changed when Labour lost Scotland to the SNP, not when socialists founded the Labour party, then he may as well leave.
Pretty much this
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55552872
Really turning off the guy now. Why don't you roll your sleeves up and do it then, Sir Keir? The health professionals are under enough pressure as is, never mind make them work 24/7.
He just does nothing and says nothing. I've let out farts with stronger views on British politics than him.
Really turning off the guy now. Why don't you roll your sleeves up and do it then, Sir Keir? The health professionals are under enough pressure as is, never mind make them work 24/7.
He just does nothing and says nothing. I've let out farts with stronger views on British politics than him.