Great Idea. Don’t underestimate the annoyance people feel about social crimes like this.
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
Great Idea. Don’t underestimate the annoyance people feel about social crimes like this.
Why do you think it's a great idea? Do you think this will stop the behaviour more than the current fine system does?
Had to look it up to remind myself. It was something Maya Angelou said.
I presume they won't get the bosses of water companies to remove the Human waste they pump daily into rivers and he sea.
Pretty good rule to live by to be fair
It's definitely an annoyance, it really pisses me off, but it's also already illegal. While this might win some favourable headlines in middle England, I don't think a performative punishment is any less of an incentive than the existing fines and possible imprisonment. To me, it doesn't feel worthy of the Leader of the Opposition's time as, even if inforced, it won't change anything. Sadly, 'won't change anything' is feeling more and more like a fitting slogan for Starmer's Labour.
Well done the guardian. Let's hope more left wing media outlets begin to do the same.
He shits on the left wing at every opportunity so I'm pleased to see articles like this starting to come out.
Next move yours Kier.
Yeh, I’d agree it won’t change the levels of fly tipping, but I do like the idea…feels like an appropriate punishment in a lot of a ways!
Highlighting fly tipping at a time of inflation, poverty, record food bank usage, high interest rates, falling house prices, stagnated wages, increasing fuel costs etc, is like cleaning your kitchen by mopping the floor first.
All those other things are hugely important. Doesn’t mean we ignore fly tipping.
Privileged mindset if I ever saw it.
I’m still far from enthusiastic about Starmer, but I fully understand why he needs to be as vague as possible about his vision before the next GE is called. We know that the Tories have a track record of nicking Labour policies and rebranding them as their own, as we’ve seen in recent times. 30p Lee confirmed what we already knew in that the Tories are clapped out and completely out of ideas, meaning that their main strategy will be to continue to stir up culture wars.
I was critical of Starmer early on, and had Labour lost the Batley and Spen by-election a couple of years ago, on the back of losing Hartlepool and the poor local election results, his position could have come under question.
But ultimately the party had 202 seats in the Commons when he took over, 7 fewer than when Kinnock took over in 1983. I thought that for a period that Labour’s best hope was making decent gains at the next GE so that they could then win the one after that. The fact that they have a realistic chance of winning the next GE, regardless of the fact that the Tories have completely unravelled since the Owen Paterson scandal, means that his leadership has been a success.
I was critical of Starmer early on, and had Labour lost the Batley and Spen by-election a couple of years ago, on the back of losing Hartlepool and the poor local election results, his position could have come under question.
But ultimately the party had 202 seats in the Commons when he took over, 7 fewer than when Kinnock took over in 1983. I thought that for a period that Labour’s best hope was making decent gains at the next GE so that they could then win the one after that. The fact that they have a realistic chance of winning the next GE, regardless of the fact that the Tories have completely unravelled since the Owen Paterson scandal, means that his leadership has been a success.
"His policies are distinguished by their lack of ambition and are dwarfed by the problems they seek to solve."
Think this sums it up quite nicely: https://www.theguardian.com/comment...starmer-his-party-remains-a-mystery-to-voters
Think this sums it up quite nicely: https://www.theguardian.com/comment...starmer-his-party-remains-a-mystery-to-voters
christ. Let’s all tip our shit everywhere to prove we aren’t privileged. That’s a dumbass mindset if ever I saw it.
Does it? If somebody is interviewing for 2 cleaners and one sits there picking their nose through the interview and flicking it across the room in the general direction of the bin, but the other shits themselves repeatedly and smears it on the carpet, would you not prefer to clean it yourself?
Let's not forget the SNP are busy unravelling in the meantime too. He's in an incredibly fortunate position and when (I assume) he wins he'll have 5 years to make tangible improvements to the country. Making the BBC, BoE etc (relatively) unbiased and independent again, investing in green industry, infrastructure, housing, bringing respect back to the health service, teaching, police etc, sorting out the mess Brexit has caused in industries such as agriculture and retail.
If he doesn't make some real progress on those kind of things then the economy will likely remain in the doldrums and the Tories will wipe the floor with him the next go around and we'll be in an even worse mess than we are now quite possibly.
That's clearly not what they were saying.
Never said we ignore it, but its simply something to do when the rest of your house is in order and right now the country is in a state.
With the Tories imploding and coming to the end of their cycle. The SNP crumbling. Surely a monkey as Labour leader would win the next GE?
Sadly Keir is just another establishment stooge. So very little will change.
Sadly Keir is just another establishment stooge. So very little will change.
See, I don't get that argument. You have policies that would improve the country and the lives of the people who live here... you should be happy if the party in Government steals those policies and implements them as soon as possible. Otherwise, what are you even an MP for? You're happy to take a couple of years of things being worse just so at the end, you can be the ones to implement policy that could have started improving people's lives years ago? To me, it's a ridiculous position to take unless your position is self-serving... which it shouldn't be as an elected representative of the people.
Secondly, Labour should have lots of policies that the Tories flat out would not want to steal because they are too pro-working class.
By your own admission it won't change the levels of tipping shit, so it's not about that at all. It's 'spend time and money on implementing a policy that doesn't do anything, except make people like @fergieisold feel better' vs not doing that.
I think the problem with this is that it's simply not how a "government in waiting" operates if it actually has plans to do anything meaningful, wants to bring people along with them and win a mandate to follow those plans through.
Think I've said it in here before, but the big policies Labour went into 1997 with (minimum wage, devolution etc.) were all in Blair's first conference speech in 1994, 2 years and 8 months out from that election. We're currently a year and 9 months out from the next election, and Starmer policy priorities appear to be publically backing existing government policy and announcing measures to tackle flytipping.
You just meant 'why is it LGBT?' didn't you?
Not just me, the majority of the population likely feel the same way. ASB sucks, we're far too soft on it.
Is Keith getting a photo with Pellistri here?
I wouldn't know, but wanting the state to spend money and time on things that won't make any difference at all should fit under most definitions of privilege.
If it really bothered you, presumably your interest should be to fix it rather than worrying if you're being soft or not.
Id have to see the numbers tbf, no idea how much a scheme like this would cost the taxpayer.
A year and 9 months at most. The election could be this time next year.
I wonder if maybe it’s intentional tactics. Massive lead in the polls to sit on for now, then much closer to the election announce whatever plans they have to solidify it and stop it slipping?
Flytipping isn't his only major policy announcement though, he's also pledged to crack down on quadbiking youths.
He's very dislikeable. He reminds me of David Cameron. A vacuous coward.
Ghastly. Who the hell signed off on that?
It's been retweeted by Starmer's 'director of strategy' Deborah Mattinson and the Starmer Party's 'National Campaign Coordinator' Shabana Mahmood, so it goes right to the top. Not that it'll stop his inevitable 'It was a junior staffer gone rogue and they've been warned about their future conduct. Did you know I worked as the DPP?' excuse when it gets deleted and his mates in the media lap it up.
Last edited:
The Telegraph, Mail and Tory MPs now claiming the moral high ground. How low can Keir and the party go. Fecking hell.
There's virtually no crossover. Sexuality and gender identity are as related as gender identity and race, or race and sexuality. In the broadest sense you can look at oppression of minorities in general and cobble together some kind of link with that but it's extremely vague
The rights and issues of trans people seem entirely different to the rights and issues of gay, lesbian and bisexual people that it seems strange they're now represented as a single group. The result of which means that issues affect LGB people simply aren't on the agenda any more. There should be, but isn't, national strategies on sexual violence, domestic abuse and drug use that hugely disproportionately impact LGB people. Yet you'd think these last couple of years the only issues was the misgendering of Sam Smith or the Tweets J.K Rowling.
Sexuality and gender identity are no more natural bedfellows than race and ageism or female emancipation and disability rights.
If someone asked "Wait, why is it considered the Women's and Disability Rights movement?' it would be a fair question, especially if it meant the discourse surrounding the 'community' of women and disabled people became dominanted by just one group.
Issues that impact LGB people have been taken off the table for the last two or three years now. That's not to say trans issues aren't equally important. But they're entirely separate issues and separate concerns.
There is a long history of allyship between all those groups, which have all long suffered disenfranchisement; the Stonewall inn uprising is a good example. It isn't just about what defines the groups, but how they historically have been a community.
Last edited: