Classical Mechanic
Full Member
Starmer on the front of the Telegraph in a positive light?
Starmer on the front of the Telegraph in a positive light?
It did make me laugh that a lot of people who supported Starmer did so on the basis that Labour needed someone who was unblemished by their past, unlike Corbyn supposedly was; and hence could not be so easily demonised.
Starmer - a former DPP, was supposed to represent a break with Corbyn and his questionable history. Already on social media I’m seeing an increasing amount of responses to tweets concerning him (mostly from bots I’d guess) accusing him of allowing Savile to go unprosecuted, working to get Worboys released, in addition to other more coherent criticisms of his record that could harm him from voters on either side of the political spectrum. Expect all this to come to fore once politics returns to relative normality.
I don't think that stuff will bother older voters in the same way as the Corbyn stuff did.
He’s light years ahead of Corbyn.
I mean that's true but look at Twitter and/or Dobba and you'd think he was the Antichrist who betrayed the saviour.It doesn’t take much to be fair.
Well christ was a jew... just sayinI mean that's true but look at Twitter and/or Dobba and you'd think he was the Antichrist who betrayed the saviour.
What are you saying, out of interest?Well christ was a jew... just sayin
Spot on. There's a cost to getting on the front page of the telegraph and we are seeing it. But boy does he look good in a suit!When the media breathed a collective sigh of relief and said ‘at last, we have an opposition back’ this is what they really meant. An opposition is back that will barely cause an ounce of anxiety for the establishment.
It’s actually embarrassing. Silent for weeks and this is what they come up with.
No offence but it's because you rarely tell us what you think labour should actual do.Yep, same old bullshit weak response.
It's funny, I've banged on about Labour being a real problem and how we should all hold them to account on here for ages now. Yet was constantly shouted down.
Well here we are yet again, with a weak opposition, one which is going to go nowhere. Shock, horror.
No offence but it's because you rarely tell us what you think labour should actual do.
The difficulty the party has is that if they put forward a good response(Rent cancelation as they did under Corbyn)then they don't get the headline in the daily telegraph(In fact they get attacked by the press) and the only way to get good press courage is through shit policy.
The party has to chose between good effective policy or positive media courage, it can't have both.
I ''attacked''(Mate it's a football forum, you might want to relax a bit)you because you have a tendency to post stuff like this -I actually have in the past, but people like you have always likes to attack me because you thought I was solely anti-corbyn.
The "left" is never going to pull itself together to fight this, we have disappeared up our own arses. But instead of facing that, you'll continue to dig at someone who is a member of the Labour party and joined up to try to make a difference, then realised very quickly how much of a mistake it was. Because it's full of people like you who want to attack people on the same side, and either side within, rather than actually practising what they preach and suggest real solutions rather than shouting down what everyone else thinks.
I didn't say this but ok. So about those polices ideas for the party ?I didn't vote Starmer, just like you didn't. Difference is, I'm not being a bitch about it because my choice didn't win so I don't have to hide behind my attacks under the guise of "well Corbyn had it worse!"
I ''attacked''(Mate it's a football forum, you might want to relax a bit)you because you have a tendency to post stuff like this -
This is just meaningless, it's a void of pointless anger full of sound and fury, signifying nothing(). Directed at imagery left that doesn't exist. If the left was full of people like myself then I'm not sure why we still have a ton of right wing mp's(I would have purge all of them), why the party put forward a policy of introducing thousands of new police officers(I'm not their best fan)or why someone like Starmer overwhelming won the leadership race.
You've basically confused a dozen lefties on a football forum for the entire British left(In my experience Labour meetings are far duller than this thread)which in fairness happens a lot on here and online in general(Twitter isn't real life should be left slogan imo).
I didn't say this but ok. So about those polices ideas for the party ?
If the labour supporters on here are even close to representative of the party as a whole then labour are absolutely doomed
You say it's "a football forum" and I should relax, yet in another thread you call all police scum...
Whilst this leadership election was going on, you made it quite clear who you backed. And now they didn't get in, you are acting exactly as expected.
Oh and the pathetic "well how are you going to sort it then?" would make me chuckle, it weren't drenched in your desire to now see Labour fail again just so you can be proved right. It's actually a shame, as the likes of you take delight in finally being proved right when Starmer loses the next election.
And for all your bluster about me having an idea on how to win an election, ignoring the fact I have no experience in that so it's laughable anyway, let's turn it back around and hear your big ideas? Or are you merely here to bitch and whine about Corbyn and RLB failing and doing the classic Labour thing of blaming everyone else?
Because for me, I'd start with real introspection on the failings, how the feck we failed to actually reach people and where the policies went wrong. I don't believe it was all Brexit and Corbyn, though the likes of you refuse to see he played a massive part in it, I think we mainly failed to connect. And why? Because the same old Labour shit, false promises, vote bribing. You sit on your moral high ground judging everyone else, because its easy for you to do that, but down in the gutter people just don't trust our bullshit vague promises up against their bullshit vague promises. We got battered and we deserved it for thinking a few claps at a fecking festival translated into votes.
Rather ironically, that was the Blair tactic too...
Welcome to Labour policy post Tony Blair.
Personally I thought the video was a load of old shite(And in general RLB campaign has been rubbish).
I don't think it this leadership election has been any longer than the ones before(It just feels like it's gone on forever). It's partly the fault of the candidates, Stamier is trying desperately trying to not say anything as he's in the lead by miles, RLB is a bit rubbish and Nandy has a bizarre mix of left over politics from pre 2015. I get the feeling none of them actual want the job.
It why his campaign has been extremely dull. RLB is every socialist under the age of 40(Barring me and a few others on here)which is socialism = being nice to everyone(''Capitalism with a human face'')which ok gets you some nice policies but lacks the fundamental drive to want to change the country. And then finally Nandy is just a mixed of everything pre 2016(Barring some not completely awful pro trans arguments, which is good).
The RLB argument(Well it should be this but her campaign is shite)against adopting a centrist politics is the outcome being saying good bye to the activist base and the whatever potentially the youth vote has(Labour got completely fecked in the election in seats lost but the actually vote percentage was something like 35, which I I think was more than 2015, 2010 and 2006. Point being it's possible for the party to sink even further in the future). But more importantly say good bye to tackling climate change. These aren't just policies we like but policies that are essential to fixing the current issues the country and world is facing.
Plus speaking of cool kids Starmer edited a trotsky magazine as a student. The whole odd liberal meme about the left being a student protest group is basically Starmer early background. The real point about Ed was about him hardly being a charismatic figure and regardless of you're politics the same is true of Starmer. Which isn't something I'm happy about, if Starmer was a Obama like guy but committed to running on the 2019 manifesto then great he would get my vote but he just isn't.
why do your mum and stepdad need two homes?Ok a serious note if you are advocating rent be cancelled, where does that leave the landlords and the mortgage payments? I know @Sweet Square probably views landlords alongside the police as scum, but I don’t think you can just cancel rent and expect landlords to foot the cost?
My stepdad rents his home out (he owned it before he met my mum), and he’s currently furloughed so he wouldn’t be able to absorb an additional mortgage cost aswell? I think there’s a view that all landlords are somehow stinking rich and own a multitude of properties but this isn’t the case.
Ok a serious note if you are advocating rent be cancelled, where does that leave the landlords and the mortgage payments? I know @Sweet Square probably views landlords alongside the police as scum, but I don’t think you can just cancel rent and expect landlords to foot the cost?
My stepdad rents his home out (he owned it before he met my mum), and he’s currently furloughed so he wouldn’t be able to absorb an additional mortgage cost aswell? I think there’s a view that all landlords are somehow stinking rich and own a multitude of properties but this isn’t the case.
why do your mum and stepdad need two homes?
it's not that all landlords have infinite money, it's that they own extremely overpriced basic necessities. if your stepdad owned a part of the food or water supply and was set to lose it because the people who need food and water have less money his loss would be fine even with him, but instead we treat housing as long term investments which leads to it being overpriced and people like your stepdad losing out because they compete with people who can afford to lose infinite money to hoard resourcesWhy do we need anything that isn’t water or food?
He decided not to sell when he moved in with my mum as he’d have got less than he paid for it, and they see it as a longer term investment. But you still didn’t answer what is meant to happen to the mortgage payments if the people actually living in the house are allowed to have a number of months rent cancelled? Yes he could apply for a mortgage holiday but I think that is only a maximum of three months. Don’t get me wrong he’s already spoken to the tenants and said they’ll work through it, as I imagine many landlords have, I just disagree with this notion that landlords have an infinite money supply and can absorb increasing costs because people living in their property don’t have to pay to live there.
Ok a serious note if you are advocating rent be cancelled, where does that leave the landlords and the mortgage payments? I know @Sweet Square probably views landlords alongside the police as scum, but I don’t think you can just cancel rent and expect landlords to foot the cost?
it's not that all landlords have infinite money, it's that they own extremely overpriced basic necessities. if your stepdad owned a part of the food or water supply and was set to lose it because the people who need food and water have less money his loss would be fine even with him, but instead we treat housing as long term investments which leads to it being overpriced and people like your stepdad losing out because they compete with people who can afford to lose infinite money to hoard resources
what needs to happen is the government investing so much money in housing that it's not a guaranteed return for anyone other than builders and other tradespeople we need to build and maintain our homes, it's a house that people need to for a reasonable quality of life and should be treated as such, it shouldn't be treated as a permanent growth investment
and if this means landlords losing everything then alapartridgeshurg.gif
Think the best solution I've read is just to temporarily increase housing benefit to cover the difference. Keeps money flowing in the economy, keeps demand up.Ok a serious note if you are advocating rent be cancelled, where does that leave the landlords and the mortgage payments? I know @Sweet Square probably views landlords alongside the police as scum, but I don’t think you can just cancel rent and expect landlords to foot the cost?
My stepdad rents his home out (he owned it before he met my mum), and he’s currently furloughed so he wouldn’t be able to absorb an additional mortgage cost aswell? I think there’s a view that all landlords are somehow stinking rich and own a multitude of properties but this isn’t the case.
the economy is going to do worse long term as a result of people having to spend more and more of their falling wages to finance boomers shitty investmentsYeah, I really don’t get what’s supposedly so bad about Starmer’s proposal. It seems like a sensible way to help renters without screwing over the property owners during this difficult time.
I’m all for the government cracking down on second home ownership long term to bring down housing prices, but that needs to be done incredibly carefully, not just as a sudden emergency measure in the middle of an economic crisis or the economy is going to be even more fecked.
i'm okay with your stepdad losing his second home dude, which part of that is difficult to understand? he has two fecking houses, so cry me a riverPredictable reply that didn’t answer the question but thanks
i'm okay with your stepdad losing his second home dude, which part of that is difficult to understand? he has two fecking houses, so cry me a river
i don't care about landlords, they already have more than they need and are overdue significant loses, especially as i said earlier, airbnb landlords who are the worstHe isn’t going to lose it .
I was asking how you’re expecting landlords to foot the cost if rents are cancelled.