To be fair I think their 'misuse' started before him around Brexit time. They're quite common now, although it has to be said the Tories didn't always show or sent a junior minister.
Westminster Politics 2024-2029
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
To be fair I think their 'misuse' started before him around Brexit time. They're quite common now, although it has to be said the Tories didn't always show or sent a junior minister.
In some ways, having badenoch facing off against starmer every week for a year or two might actually benefit the tories.
She believes in nothing, but can be convincing that she does on culture war stuff. Starmer is incredibly weak and easily bounced into utterly ridiculous policies. If you had to lose a couple of years of political pressure, replacing it with 2 years of her screaming at him about immigrants, and starmer constantly saying he is doing more, without anything changing, wouldn't necessarily be a negative for the tory party right now.
Whoever wins, Jenrick has at least done better than the last time he stood to be a leader:
He’s not yet transitioned from opposition leader to PM. He was surgical in his opposition to Johnson and Sunak. Now he’s actually got to lead, and just say ‘feck off’ to the Tories and right wing media. Theres zero sense trying to reason with cnuts.
Is that the organisation that's going to build everything on PFI contracts and cripple us for the next 30 years, because the millstone around our neck from the old ones isn't quite heavy enough?
So now building houses and repairing school buildings is a…bad thing?
Using private investment? Yeah, probably
Private sector has the money though. What else are you going to do?
We can't afford to spend public money building these things, but we can afford to use it to pay PFI debt of five times that investment amount over the next 25-30 years.
Depends how much it costs. Some PFI contracts quadrupled the lifetime costs of the asset, but the government that does it doesn’t care because they know theyll be long gone by the time the pain is felt. What's being proposed will eclipse the previous PFI deals in scale.
There are other, better ways to finance infrastructure but that would require a government with a plan.
And no donors to hand over the contracts to.
Care to enlighten the rest of us?
Public money. All Reeves has to do is back down from her dumbass promise not to raise headline taxes, or increase borrowing limits (investment is a worthy cause), or recategorise how debt is calculated. Any or all would be a good start.
Exclusive: Rates of 33% to 39% being tested as Treasury source says tax-raising plans are in ‘complete disarray’
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/10/rachel-reeves-capital-gains-tax-rise-budget
Whitehall sources say there is growing concern about the limited options for tax rises to fill a hole the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) thinktank says is as big as £25bn, ahead of the budget on 30 October.
“Some very big tax decisions are being left until very late in the day,” one senior source claimed. Another said the Treasury’s tax-raising plans were in “complete disarray”.
Hmm.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/10/rachel-reeves-capital-gains-tax-rise-budget
Whitehall sources say there is growing concern about the limited options for tax rises to fill a hole the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) thinktank says is as big as £25bn, ahead of the budget on 30 October.
“Some very big tax decisions are being left until very late in the day,” one senior source claimed. Another said the Treasury’s tax-raising plans were in “complete disarray”.
Hmm.
The pound is already heading south. Just raise tax rates and blame it on the Tory legacy - no one will remember anyway at the next election in 2029.
Starmer's donors didn't fork out to have their taxes increased
Fair point
As the opposition they're going to get tons of air time to spout nonsense policies and get backed by the right wing press whilst they do it. Unlike Liz truss, they won't have to actually attempt any of them since they're not in power. If Truss was opposition leader proposing her daft budget, the right-wing media would have lapped it up and declared it the only way forward.
Whichever one of those pricks takes over the Tories, theyre going to drag the Overton window further right and attempt to control the agenda. Starmer isn't strong enough or progessive enough to counter it and will probably just acquiesce to the Tory/Reform position in fear of being seen as unpopular.
Either of the those two becoming Tory leader increases the chances of a Tory/Reform merger or alliance. Which takes away the split vote that got Labour its majority.
Labour need to start churning out changes that make a real difference to peoples lives within the next 4 years. If not, then the past 14 years will seem tame after a hard-right Tory government, unrestrained by EU regulation takes over.
The promise on tax (especially national insurance) shouldn't have been made but it was made, so it has to be kept.
Of course they will, you won't hear anything else from the Tories.
The pound is weakening because interest rates are likely to fall.
we have had 14 yrs or tories who literally have a low tax economy as part of their souls, who still go on about cutting taxes being the be all and end all (cf Jenrick yday), and yet they raised taxes to the highest levels seen for generations. and it won them 3 elections. so i dont see why as others have mentioned above, Labour cant change tack and tear up some of their manifesto. they have 4 years to show the benefits of improved investment. unless they are waiting for a while longer and let everything really go to shit, blame the tories and then raise taxes. but that wont wash and is morally akin to the pain inflicted with austerity.
Labour cannot change tack on things like a promise not to raise tax.
They are owned by people who want lower tax. Reeves and starmer have been given huge personal donations to achieve that. They work for those people, in Reeves case a US company that took here to see the NYSE, among others, not for you.
Corbyn wasn't a last chance for us because of his policies, I thought some of them utter crap, leaving NATO would cause unecessary friction when we need international trade more than ever, for instance.
But because the one thing he is, is incorruptible. You couldn't buy him, he actually wanted to do what he thought wwas best for the country. Disgaree with his ideas, and I did quite often, but at least he was trying to make things better.
Now we have this. And because the only people who can actually get elected to lead the country are all owned by the exact same groups of people, it cannot get better. As starmer shows, the rate it gets worse will continue to increase.
Are you having a go at Sunny Singh or Starmer there? Because his mispeaking was quickly corrected by No.10.
I just don't believe anything he saysAre you having a go at Sunny Singh or Starmer there? Because his mispeaking was quickly corrected by No.10.
Bet his uncle wasn't even in the navy
Are you having a go at Sunny Singh or Starmer there? Because his mispeaking was quickly corrected by No.10.
The bigger stupidity is the idea that his uncle's history should have any say on government policy.
£4 million donation, deliberately timed to be hidden till after the election (something starmer also did in his leadership election campaign), from a fund heavily invested in fossil fuels, proved a wise investment then.
Seriously? It's pretty easy to find.
Or do you start off not wanting to believe anything he says and go from there?
So when taxes are inevitably increased (looking very likely already), what then?
But it's not. Policy hasn't changed, Starmer just gave an extra element to it, it's what politicians do.
Indeed. It's not a fair minded aargument about Starmers honesty, it's just pedantry.
Oh right so he's just talking absolute bollocks, much better as long as it's 'what politicians do'.
He's replied to a question from an increasingly nationalistic opposition Party by citing a personal 'stake' as a means of trying to calm the proverbial dogs.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions..what also matters is the viability of the plan and the ability of the people involved to execute it properly. On those last two scores, voters just didn't buy it.
I remember when forensic detail was all the rage.
Surely his uncles history is this countries history?
The defence of the Falkland Islands was government policy and was undertaken to protect British interests in that area of the southern hemisphere, including the wishes of the people who lived there. Starmer was stating what most British people would agree with.
I would doubt any Prime Minister would sanction a loss of the Falklands, certainly whilst people who served there, their relatives and heirs that are alive, or until the Falkland islanders themselves wished for things to be different.
Honestly, if you think an argument about whether the ship was really struck by a missile or a torpedo amounts to anything good luck!
I'm sure they're deeply concerned about Starmer's uncle and have now changed their minds about Starmer.