Lady Haw Haw is at it again.
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
Emily Thornberry or Angela Rayner to give him a stone cold stunner and take over the leadership please
I think it may be time. But some will never learn.
I'm as corbynite as the next man (who may or may not have a cervix / arsenal season ticket)..but ffs can they not stop the squabbling. Resigning on principle over a 15 quid minimum wage may be honourable, but its not much use to the poor if the timing just makes labour less likely to be elected, having had any positive messages from their conference just pissed away..
Any positive messaging of unity was pissed away when Starmer tried his anti democratic power grab / change in leadership rules for the party at the start of the conference. Not a good way to encourage unity and electability.
At the next election, the decision on who you want to form the next government is going to come down to a straight fight between Tory and Labour.
Abstaining will result in another Tory win.
That is the reality of politics in the UK.
There are some things I am not overly keen on with Labour. And that includes the leader, who I initially supported but can now see his limitations as a leader.
But all this so called infighting, resulting in bad press for Labour will only benefit Boris.
So I am afraid, it will inevitably come down to a decision of least worse.
And I certainly know who is going to be the least worse.
If the so called centrist pragmatists who only care about winning didn't vote Labour because of Corbyn what makes you think the youth being left behind will turn out just because?
They won't and no doubt the same centrists who didn't vote Corbyn will complain but they've only got themselves to blame. The likes of Mandelson are annihilating any chance of such unity being possible.
Starmer and the party had a clear path to unity but the old blairites set their priorities and decided it was more important to burn bridges. No cooperation can exist in that environment.
Let me guess, we vote now and then push them to do things they're not interested in once they're in power?
It's working wonders for those who held their nose to vote for Biden.
The Tories too. Marketing themselves as low tax and fiscally responsible when we have the highest taxation rates since WW2, along with the largest amount of waste.
Our only hope is getting a hung parliament where labour agree to get in power in a coalition with someone with an agreement to change the voting system to get in power. Until we can actually vote for a party with decent policies nothing will change and the 2 main parties have no reason to shake things up.
But still have a significantly lower tax take than our European competitors. Sorting by % of GDP will help.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio
Yeah, I know Europe isn't the world, but it does help fill the picture out a little
Public debt is interesting too. I believe in being fiscally responsible but the 'we're shit' stuff can be a little overdone at times.
yeah Im sure things would be exactly the same if they hadnt done that and trump had won
I think it's difficult to compare countries who have completely different models for growth. Ireland have a different model than Singapore who have a different model to the UK, Sweden or France
I think because of that it's very difficult to compare. Even within the UK it's difficult as London is completely different to everywhere else.
That's why in truth my view is rather than look at the UK and compare to Singapore, Ireland, France or Sweden; we're better off comparing with ourselves historically.
In that context the Tories are the most economically left wing party we've had to date.
btw Starmer(Along with some dog shit union politics and party bureaucrats) has given these people more power in the party.
"Tax revenue has been stable for two decades but is forecast to rise to historical highs"
https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/key-questions/how-have-government-revenues-changed-over-time
I suspect what you're actually complaining about is the big rise in spending due to covid, and I don't think the way furlough was handled was wise personally, giving more money to the better off as it did, but I admit I'm not clever enough to work out the economic consequences if that hadn't been done, so I have to kind of trust the Treasury on that one.
"Tax revenue has been stable for two decades but is forecast to rise to historical highs"
https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/key-questions/how-have-government-revenues-changed-over-time
I suspect what you're actually complaining about is the big rise in spending due to covid, and I don't think the way furlough was handled was wise personally, giving more money to the better off as it did, but I admit I'm not clever enough to work out the economic consequences if that hadn't been done, so I have to kind of trust the Treasury on that one.
No the complaint is regarding taxation as a proportion of GDP, which will usually drop during a recession (and has certainly done so temporarily during Covid)
Since the early 90's it's grown pretty consistently year on year to be on a consistent basis a post war high.
You're correct though it's forecasted under the tax and spend Tories to increase even further, naturally stifling growth and investment in its path.
An untrustworthy one at that.
Ironic then that the infighting is being catalysed by Starmer and his team. They are actively reducing their chances.
I think I would be forced to follow Starmers lead and abstain if a GE came around. I couldn't bring myself to vote for him right now, even if I held my nose. Maybe Green...
A fall in GDP for two quarters is the general definition of a recession, so yes, they do tend to go together.
The two articles I've posted seem to show to me that the UK is neither a highly taxed country for a developed nation, nor by it's own historical standards, covid apart, but I suppose we will each view them from our own slant.
What's the point of supporting this party who won't change the electoral system, thereby dooming the UK to endless Tory or right-shifted Labour governments. Pathetic cretins the lot of them.
Fair enough. To me it looks like a consistently upward trend from each decade having lows in the high 20's and highs in the low 30's to now having lows in the low 30's and highs now in the mid 30's (for example the last time the figure was under 30 was in 96/97 which is the longest period ever I believe).
It doesn't sound aggressive but each % point is a large change.
Leadership result on Friday, apparently. They're sitting on our votes until the end of the Labour conference in the hope someone might notice then.
It's all demographics. More old people means more government spending needed.
Maybe unity of the kind you seek, is over-rated if it keeps repelling voters.
Were the demographics significantly different in the 80's vs 90's in the opposite direction (less old people in the 90's)? Likewise are the demographics now substantially different to 20 years ago?
Is say it's more to do with ideology.
Are you seriously asking if the UK has more old people now than it did in the 90's?
Keith has been crap but there's no one that can unite the party. It's a fantasy. The only hope is for electoral reform so the party can split.
Yes, the demographic change is stark.
https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2019/10/Ageing-fast-and-slow.pdf
https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2017/01/Live-long-and-prosper.pdf
The Resolution Foundation has done a lot of fascinating research on this phenomenon. The years 1985 - 2005 were roughly the sweet spot demographically as the working age population was huge due to the Baby Boomer wave growing up... now they've got to retirement and we've got to pay for them.
Taxes are only going up further from here, I'm afraid.
No I'm saying did the UK have more old people in the 80's than the 90's and also whether we have comparatively more people now than that difference.
@MikeUpNorth Sorry if it was unclear. Although reading it again it might still be?
I think it's quite obvious if you split spend to GDP per administration since Thatcher that the decisions are more ideological. Whether it be low tax/low spend, higher tax/higher spend, higher tax/reduce deficit or now higher tax and higher spend again.
How would we know, when exactly did we have any semblance of unity?
The closest would be when Starmer first took over and his polling was well above the 20% favourability that he's currently sitting at.
You centrists can't keep calling out your mythical silver bullet centrist electability when it's currently not working and hasn't worked for any other leader since Blair.
One could argue that unity leads to a better chance of winning
So he’s basically admitted that he’s happy to move the party over to the right as long as he wins?
What is the fecking point in Labour?
What is the fecking point in Labour?
still not a direct repudiation! "unresolved". i think he needs to publicly and directly burn the left - and young people and what they suppport- to have a chance with the base he targeting.
e - apparently he said "tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime", again, cut out the second clause! your voters don't care about it.
Last edited:
Gone now but I quite liked Caroline Lucas. Although I never did much research into her, she always seem/s to be fighting the right causes.