Last edited:
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss Amad saving our blushes in a win against Southampton as well as our now annual loss at home to Brighton. They discuss Amorim's post-match comments, revisit how mid-table we may or may not be, and discuss some transfer news.
When rich people get richer, where do you think that money comes from? Where do you think it came from originally? There isn’t a magic money tree. When rich people get richer, it means more money has been appropriated from the labour of poor people. The only opportunity it creates for poor people is the opportunity to get poorer.
The poor are not getting poorer, though their increase in wealth is not as fast. The rich get richer yes, and they pay large amounts of taxes to subsidise the poor. The last time we had a Corbyn like socialist government (in the 70s)they ended up screwing our economy so badly we had to go to the IMF to be bailed out. That’s what happens with socialist governments, a brief moment of time where you can take massive amounts of money from high earners and businesses, followed by a mass exodus, a massive drop in productivity and an economy that then collapses. It happens literally every time.
Communism is just socialism on steroids and I shouldn’t need to explain that.
Last edited:
That’s a gross distortion of the truth. Rich people investing theit money means more jobs, jobs for the poorer and others. Or rich people paying more in taxes which is then spent by the government.
Investing more money to create more jobs which exploit workers and pay them a fraction of what their labour actually generates. Any money taken by the government is then, if they’re lucky, put into papering over the problems left by inadequate wages with social security so people in work but still mired in poverty can continue to survive on a meagre existence (and thereby continue to be exploited). Your point also supposes that rich people and big corportations actually pay their tax and do not exploit deliberately designed loopholes to avoid it, or that wealth would not be generated and therefore taxed without having a handful of rich people who take the majority of it. It’s a strange notion that we need people with exorbitant wealth to have a good tax revenue or jobs created.
Well done for failing to read my post and then having the gall to pretend that I'm the idiot.
The entire point of the PV campaign was to stop Brexit through a second referendum. 2017-2019 Parliament was deeply divided and so there was an opportunity to try and secure a second vote. Once Boris got his majority there was literally no chance of securing a second vote or any further changes. Even if PV did change their position to a second referendum on the sort of deal we pursue after we left the EU, there is no avenue through Parliament through which to do anything because Johnson has an 80+ majority. So they can have all the political energy in the world but they can't change a thing. If there was an avenue to a second referendum on the deal I'd support it but sadly there isn't (unless I'm missing something obvious, in which case feel free to correct).
Sustainable debt was exactly your point from your previous post. But as expected, yet another incoherent post from you.
The icing on the cake is when you call data from the notoriously impartial fullfact.org typical of a "left wing fanatic". The irony of a clear fanatic like yourself, pointing that accusation at someone else is not lost on me luckily enough. Very funny, but the lack of self awareness is sad.
I suggest you read the articles I shared again and try to understand them. If you can at least tell me what you think the articles communicate, in your own words, and what issues are being "conflated" then I will give you the benefit of the doubt. As it stands I fear the poor cognitive skills and clear bias demonstrated in your previous posts are a dangerous combination.
What dreamland do you live in? Let me guess, your experience with "underrepresented groups" is limited?
Sustainable economics was my point, which you should have noticed. Debt is a good indicator of that. If your debt increases at a faster rate than your economy grows then you have an unsustainable economy. Like France, Italy, Greece and pretty much all of socialist minded Southern Europe that are demanding Germany spend their money on a stimulus to bail out their own unsustainable economies. The EUs fiscal deficit limits are designed to placate this.
Again stop conflating (have you even reread my previous statement in question yet?), I said in my post that we have one of the most generous welfare system in the world, which we do, you then posted an article comparing our welfare system with a few other EU county’s’ welfare system which has nothing to do with the point I made. I also didn’t question your source, I took your word for it even with the differrrent figures that your source provides....Why are these points so difficult for you to understand?
Last edited:
My Experience with university recruitment. If you get the grades then you get in. If you want to complain about how certain groups have a harder route at school then go ahead, but we have a meritocratic university system. In fact if anything we have a system of positive discrimination to allow underrepresented groups a leg up over the rest.
Last edited:
Dear god is this where the debate has gone now.
People are paid based on the value of the work they provide. Capital investors create the jobs and are the ones that risk the most, therefore they gain the most from their investments. Someone who accepts a job to put some pieces of metal together in part of a product is not entitled to more than their contribution to that product, which is minimal, and there pay is set accordingly.
If you have a problem with the minimum wage then fine, but by any international standard our minimum wage is very high and standard of living in this country is very high not counting for the ridiculously high house prices everyone has to endure.
I‘ve never endorsed tax evasion or avoidance, that’s a separate conversation and not one that’s as simple (For multinationals at least) as the “man on the street” would like it to be.
Quit with the insults and put downs.
Just like the twittersphere. If they can’t win with logic it’s straight to the toys out the pram name calling.
The strength of the CE is hearing different viewpoints and perspectives. It falls apart when it descends into bickering and name-calling.
Attack the post, not the poster as the rule says.
Attack the post, not the poster as the rule says.
Come on now, you're hardly any better. Sweeping generalisations, misrepresenting the truth and outright falsehoods have been in pretty much every one of your posts over the last couple of pages.
Well I can’t write an essay here so generalisations are necessary as long as they ring true overall. If there are any misrepresentations or falesehoods you believe are in my posts then feel free to highlight them
Speaking in general terms is fine, calling leftists "envy driven free loading wannabes" and closet communists isn't.
As for falsehoods and misrepresentations, you know what they are, you've been pulled up on them by several posters.
I always chuckle when I see such claims, my in-laws always question why I vote Labour when i've got a really good job. It's an odd kind of brain washing that's been done over decades that says Labour are for the benefit of scroungers. I think it says a lot about the traditional Tory voter that they're incapable of understanding others may vote with empathy and for society rather than out of personal gain (like they do). Projection at it's finest.
The daft bastard has admitted he interferes in the disciplinary process. Bring back the glory days when even the suggestion that this happened was proof the leader of the Labour Party was a modern day Stalin.
Still, Sir 'No ifs, no buts, no equivocation' has got the covid outbreaks in schools to console himself with. So at worst mixed start to the week for him.
Still, Sir 'No ifs, no buts, no equivocation' has got the covid outbreaks in schools to console himself with. So at worst mixed start to the week for him.
That third quote is a question not an insult.
The other two may be harsh, I accept, but fair.
Says the man ranting about left wing fanatics for using a fact check website fullfact.org, which disproved your false claim about the UK having the most generous benefits system in the World.
You embody everything you claim to be against, I suspect you are part of the obnoxious right wing twittersphere, whereas I don't even have a twitter account, very hypocritical of you.
Last edited:
So your experience of under represented people consists of talking to people who can afford to consider going to University. That explains alot.
Try talking to homeless charities or people who are working full time but still in poverty. As a starting point.
I guess we are all limited by our life experience. But to make sweeping statements like you have about "under represented" people I would hope you had broader horizons.
Where does their original excess capital come from? The majority of capital investors started from nothing, putting metal together in assembly lines, did they?
Jesus fecking Christ. Multiple posts later and you’re still arguing because you’re so blinkered in your own fanaticism you can’t grasp the phrase “one of the most generous benefit systems in the world”. I didn’t say the most generous in the world or compare it to a few other select European countries. I also accepted your source so youre arguing with yourself. Accept it and move on.
As for your other point. I’m not from a wealthy family. I worked hard for the grades I needed and took out student loans like 90% of others that were at uni. Obviously if you borrow 9k to study medieval basket weaving or whatever other honey trap degrees some unis try to offer then it’s not worth it and the apprenticeship or other route is better. The opportunities are there for everyone if they work hard enough, but of course it’s much easier to blame others.
Last edited:
Well there’s obviously people born rich that do venture capital if that’s what you’re alluding to. Most investors are institutions though like pension funds, or entrepreneurs who’ve set up their own business from scratch and successfully sold it. I meet very few people starting their own business that start off rich.
The opportunities are there for everyone if they work hard enough?
I earn a very good salary by any sensible measure. I have had the privilege of a good education. I was also born in a slum estate in one of the most deprived areas in all of Europe.
If it weren't for the socialist policies that allowed me the opportunity of both sensible comprehensive education, welfare for my family when needed and, most critically, free undergraduate education it is very unlikely that, no matter how hard I worked would I be able to post those first two sentences.
I continue to vote for parties of the left, partly although not exclusively as a consequence of this experience, not due to envy of hard workers (I do not envy the many poorly payed hard workers that I encounter) and a desire to leech from the state, but because I believe in redistribution of wealth and equal opportunities for all irrespective of the unfortunate circumstances they may find themselves in.
I can understand that. I have always considered myself as working class simply because I had to go out to work to earn a living and support my family.
But nowadays, many people I know think themselves to be above working class. Although they, like me really are. And in a sense, that is the challenge for Labour. To make themselves relevant to those who aspire to be so called middle class. And that has to mean modernisation; not just rebranding.
Most people vote in the same way that their parents do. Most people vote for a party because that’s what they’ve always done, no matter what the policies, or their own personal situation. Applies to all parties, not just some sort of Tory brainwashing.
All of the points in your initial post have been disproved. You have been given links that show you were wrong. Yet you refuse to accept it. All while wildly and inaccurately accusing others of fanaticism. It really is ridiculous.
Regards your second point, you think all families can afford to support their kids enough through primary school and secondary school, in order for them to gain the grades to get into college? And then have the means to excel enough in college to get into University? In your view, that is an opportunity afforded to all? Every single person has that chance? Can you clarify.
Interesting attack line that echoes Tory propaganda about how they’ve always respected the rule of law.
More like it helps position labour as the party of law and order vs the Tories who aren't. Political open goal, stupid not to take it.
I’m sure they could have formulated a criticism of the Tories that did not involve praising their past as as a party that ‘treasured the rule of law’, it’s not exactly a tough ask. It also will strengthen the Tories hand when they ditch Johnson and want to present themselves as sensible again.
Nobody cares what Rachel Reeves is tweeting.
Possibly... but part of wooing voters is also creating a permission structure that enables people to rationalise and justify the change
But for many floating voters, the kind labour must win, her statement is true. Why make this complicated?
a story of Glastonbury to catastrophe
The question is a patronising one though. If someone's argument is BS you're more than capable of destroying it through fact and reason, without the personal slights.