Do you want to discuss boring politics? (31 Viewers)

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I didn't say that. I said a Keir Starmer premiership didn't excite me.

It doesn't excite me either.

But the thought of another Tory government with the current lot terrifies me.

I'll take not being excited.

 

---

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Not voting is a far more important statement than just voting as you have to

Well, not really because there can be a number of reasons people don't vote. You can argue that it shows a general apathy towards the political process, but that isn't necessarily the entire story.

Same as with spoiling a ballot. Can happen for a number of reasons, from a deliberate act of disaffection to just filling it out wrong.

To turn up to vote and specifically tick a box that says 'none of the above' (which I would add) - that sends a message.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

It is, I fully agree.

Given the state of the country and the country's finances after those aforementioned 13 years, I don't know how possible it is though, and some of it will have to be more gradual.

Also, the problem with coming out with any radical policies this early is they would (probably wrongly) be torn to shreds by the right wing press. 'how are they going to fund this?' 'Labour are going to raise your taxes!' etc

The bottom line is polls show a comprehensive victory for Labour and whilst you and others would like to see some more progressive policies, while they have that big lead why do anything to upset the apple cart? Just keep doing what you're doing, it's working.

Irony being that last time the one's who didn't set out their funding plans were the Tories.

Yet in that election again the ones that were scrutinised most on their spending and funding plans were Labour.

Surely there has to be a time soon when this idea that the Tories are economically competent is removed from the collective national psyche.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

It doesn't excite me either.

But the thought of another Tory government with the current lot terrifies me.

I'll take not being excited.

Not good enough. Starmer with no vision is miles ahead. Starmer with a vision would if anything be further ahead.

 

[Sick Boy]

Didnt the Yanks leave because it was an affront to their sovereignty?

I’m pretty sure it was used by members of the Leave campaign as a reason for leaving as it looked like the EU was going join it.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Not good enough. Starmer with no vision is miles ahead. Starmer with a vision would if anything be further ahead.

Maybe he would. But as you says he (well, Labour) are ahead. That's all they need to be at the end of an election. And that will be good enough for now.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

The country does not have "finances" it is not a household. Any government hiding behind that is either Tory or misleading.

When money was cheap to loan, the cost of servicing debt was sustainable. Money isn’t cheap anymore (5-7%) and Governments will have to ‘budget’ more to avoid a debt crisis.

Fears around bonds as a result of increasing interest rates and unfunded policies let to Truss being ousted. This also now impacts Labour because they can’t make significant spending pledges in fear of spooking the markets.

 

[fernandopartridge]

When money was cheap to loan, the cost of servicing debt was sustainable. Money isn’t cheap anymore (5-7%) and Governments will have to ‘budget’ more to avoid a debt crisis.

Fears around bonds as a result of increasing interest rates and unfunded policies let to Truss being ousted. This also now impacts Labour because they can’t make significant spending pledges in fear of spooking the markets.

The government does not need bonds to finance its spending

 

[fernandopartridge]

Is this good

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Are you guys fucking serious? You have the easiest election ever coming up. The tories are hated by so many in the country, and you are here, in-fighting and essentially on the verge of giving up and accepting defeat because of Starmer and/or Corbyn. It's fucking embarrassing.

 

[clint van damme]

Are you guys fucking serious? You have the easiest election ever coming up. The tories are hated by so many in the country, and you are here, in-fighting and essentially on the verge of giving up and accepting defeat because of Starmer and/or Corbyn. It's fucking embarrassing.

It's really not.
I keep saying it, we need radical change.
Sometimes the countrys fine and slight a adjustment left or right doesn't make that much difference and we can all get on with our lives.
But this country has gone rapidly downhill for the vast majority in the last few years and we've had big, unprecedented events, brexit, the pandemic, cost of living crisis etc to contend with.

A cursory look at the economy shows the vast majority have really taken a hit to their household purse strings, we've been worse affected than all the other G7 countries and even Russia has better growth predictions.

Throw in our crumbling infrastructure, a health service on its knees, and environmental issues, (we're allowing water companies to pump millions of gallons of sewage into our waterways daily), and I'm afraid a slight adjustment left isn't going to cut it this time.

Fixing all of the above is a huge job and it's going to take bold, iniative thinking and personally I don't thinking Statmers got it, I could be wrong and I also don't personally know who I think can do it.

So I don't think its embarrassing, and it's not just about winning the election, it's about sorting all of the above and fixing the country.

 

[Ian1779]

Are you guys fucking serious? You have the easiest election ever coming up. The tories are hated by so many in the country, and you are here, in-fighting and essentially on the verge of giving up and accepting defeat because of Starmer and/or Corbyn. It's fucking embarrassing.

The state of our governance and leadership is akin to our League 1 relegation season.

The people at the top table to guide us through are the political equivalents of Jamie Sterry, Charles Vernam and Vladimir Gadzhev. Sunak is in ‘late-stage Mowbray’ and we are drifting aimlessly down.

We haven’t got Mark Robins coming over the horizon to start the rebuild…. Only Russell Slade.

 

[shmmeee]

The state of our governance and leadership is akin to our League 1 relegation season.

The people at the top table to guide us through are the political equivalents of Jamie Sterry, Charles Vernam and Vladimir Gadzhev. Sunak is in ‘late-stage Mowbray’ and we are drifting aimlessly down.

We haven’t got Mark Robins coming over the horizon to start the rebuild…. Only Russell Slade.

If we’re comparing to City managers and it’s asking which is dull but effective and which is the fans choice but has no experience and will crash and burn, I argue you’ve got Starmer and Corbyn the wrong way around.

 

[clint van damme]

If we’re comparing to City managers and it’s asking which is dull but effective and which is the fans choice but has no experience and will crash and burn, I argue you’ve got Starmer and Corbyn the wrong way around.

I appreciate you're replying to Ians post but in my opinion the question shouldnt be is Starmer better than Corbyn, it should be is he the man to sort out the mess of the last 13 years?

 

[shmmeee]

I appreciate your replying to Ians post but in my opinion the question shouldnt be is Starmer better than Corbyn, it should be is he the man to sort out the mess of the last 13 years?

Step one of fixing a mess is stopping making more mess I guess.

We’re just going to have to see because he’s the only option we’ve got. Same as I voted Corbyn despite wanting a left winger from the 21st century. What do you want? A leadership contest when we’re 20pts ahead with likely a year to an election?

 

[Ian1779]

If we’re comparing to City managers and it’s asking which is dull but effective and which is the fans choice but has no experience and will crash and burn, I argue you’ve got Starmer and Corbyn the wrong way around.

Corbyn is Eric Black
Starmer is still Slade

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Corbyn is Eric Black
Starmer is still Slade

Starmer is robins coming back. Steady hand, nothing flash, playing not to lose rather than try to win.

Who knows what will happen once he has to govern

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I appreciate you're replying to Ians post but in my opinion the question shouldnt be is Starmer better than Corbyn, it should be is he the man to sort out the mess of the last 13 years?

Genuinely, don't you think that a lurch the other way after years of uber-righty policies would spook global affairs at this time? The only party that ever leapt in and did such things was Labour post WW2 (well, maybe Asquith and Lloyd George's Liberal government, but Lloyd George was then seen as suitable to head up a government consisting mostly of Tories!) and the entire world was rebuilding at that time anyway.

Even Thatcher had a relatively moderate first term, where she kept funding British Leyland etc. It was after showing her competence to govern (I know, I know!) that she was emboldened to go properly radical.

We havent even had a manifesto yet, and if (no doubt you'll say when) it veers too far from the 2017 one then yep, I'll agree we need more of that kind of thing. But atm, the winning policy is not being a mentalist who crashes the economy, and not changing leaders every other week while being mired in sleaze and corruption. A bit of stability could well improve things on its own, and then we look to progression. Blair's failing (beyond warmongering!) was not building on that stability after one term. For that term, despite not being a particularly radical government, the country got back on its feet as much because we started talking about society again rather than just casting off and demonising the most oppressed.

 

[shmmeee]

Corbyn is Eric Black
Starmer is still Slade

Hahahahaga. John Smith is Eric black, Tony Blair is Mickey Adam’s, Ed Milliband is Stephen Presley and Corbyn is Slade.

It is the way.

Oh and Gordon Brown is Roland Nilsson

 

[clint van damme]

Step one of fixing a mess is stopping making more mess I guess.

We’re just going to have to see because he’s the only option we’ve got. Same as I voted Corbyn despite wanting a left winger from the 21st century. What do you want? A leadership contest when we’re 20pts ahead with likely a year to an election?

I want what I've saying for ages, some radical reform to undo the mess of the last 13 years and especially the last 3 or 4.

I don't buy this it cant be done overnight.

The energy companies are making record profits on the back of higher energy prices caused by the war.
The supermarkets are profiteering on the back of food price inflation which is over 20 percent.

Train prices have gone through the roof and massive dividends and bonuses been paid to executives.

The British public, the tax payers of the only G7 country whose economy hasnt returned to pre pandemic levels, are picking up the tab.

It's got to stop, and the damage has got to be undone, we're shouldn't be a cash cow for spivs and cronies.

Freezing council tax for a year isn't going to cut it.

 

[Ian1779]

Hahahahaga. John Smith is Eric black, Tony Blair is Mickey Adam’s, Ed Milliband is Stephen Presley and Corbyn is Slade.

It is the way.

Oh and Gordon Brown is Roland Nilsson

I’m confused - does that make Starmer Fisher or Boddy?

 

[PVA]

We havent even had a manifesto yet, and if (no doubt you'll say when) it veers too far from the 2017 one then yep, I'll agree we need more of that kind of thing. But atm, the winning policy is not being a mentalist who crashes the economy, and not changing leaders every other week while being mired in sleaze and corruption. A bit of stability could well improve things on its own, and then we look to progression. Blair's failing (beyond warmongering!) was not building on that stability after one term. For that term, despite not being a particularly radical government, the country got back on its feet as much because we started talking about society again rather than just casting off and demonising the most oppressed.

Exactly this. I really don't know why it's so difficult to understand.

Nobody is suggesting Starmer is some generational leader who is going to radically going to change the country over night, as much as we'd all like that.

But we will be better off under his government than this Tory government. He will stabilise things, there won't be such pure greed and corruption at the top. Then we can look at changing things.

 

[Ian1779]

Exactly this. I really don't know why it's so difficult to understand.

Nobody is suggesting Starmer is some generational leader who is going to radically going to change the country over night, as much as we'd all like that.

But we will be better off under his government than this Tory government. He will stabilise things, there won't be such pure greed and corruption at the top. Then we can look at changing things.

What you don’t seem to understand is you expect us to all fall in line behind a guy that doesn’t back me as a teacher, doesn’t back train drivers, nurses, bin men, junior doctors or anyone in the public sector that is fighting for a better deal for them, their family or their profession.

 

[clint van damme]

Genuinely, don't you think that a lurch the other way after years of uber-righty policies would spook global affairs at this time? The only party that ever leapt in and did such things was Labour post WW2 (well, maybe Asquith and Lloyd George's Liberal government, but Lloyd George was then seen as suitable to head up a government consisting mostly of Tories!) and the entire world was rebuilding at that time anyway.

Even Thatcher had a relatively moderate first term, where she kept funding British Leyland etc. It was after showing her competence to govern (I know, I know!) that she was emboldened to go properly radical.

We havent even had a manifesto yet, and if (no doubt you'll say when) it veers too far from the 2017 one then yep, I'll agree we need more of that kind of thing. But atm, the winning policy is not being a mentalist who crashes the economy, and not changing leaders every other week while being mired in sleaze and corruption. A bit of stability could well improve things on its own, and then we look to progression. Blair's failing (beyond warmongering!) was not building on that stability after one term. For that term, despite not being a particularly radical government, the country got back on its feet as much because we started talking about society again rather than just casting off and demonising the most oppressed.

We've been absolutely robbed in the last few years, we're becoming the poor man of western Europe.
A look through this thread will throw up dozens of posts hilighting how bad we've had it.

To say we can't undo that, and that we shouldn't do that, is sometbing I really can't understand.

The tories were quick to profiteer off the back of the pandemic, the energy companies were quick to profiteer of the back of price hikes of gas, the food manufacturers were quick to profiteer of the back of increased grain prices.

Yet redressing the balance has to have asoftly softly approach. Not for me. Time we had a government who governed for the benefit of the majority.

 

[shmmeee]

I’m confused - does that make Starmer Fisher or Boddy?

Starmer is Doug King, what we need and an improvement if not the best we can imagine.

 

[shmmeee]

Serious question for the disaffected lefties, what in here do you disagree with? Not the interview stuff from the likes of Streeting or policy you wish had been announced but hasn’t. What on here is a bad idea?

Resources – The Labour Party

labour.org.uk

 

[fernandopartridge]

If we’re comparing to City managers and it’s asking which is dull but effective and which is the fans choice but has no experience and will crash and burn, I argue you’ve got Starmer and Corbyn the wrong way around.

Who's in charge of the Twitter account today, Terry Fuckwit?

 

[shmmeee]

Who's in charge of the Twitter account today, Terry Fuckwit?

Diane Abbott

 

[Ian1779]

Serious question for the disaffected lefties, what in here do you disagree with? Not the interview stuff from the likes of Streeting or policy you wish had been announced but hasn’t. What on here is a bad idea?

Resources – The Labour Party

labour.org.uk

Without being facetious - there’s no guarantee he won’t renege on every bit of it.

We’ve gone from ‘competent Corbynism’ to ‘we’ll freeze the energy price cap’ in 3 years

 

[clint van damme]

Exactly this. I really don't know why it's so difficult to understand.

Nobody is suggesting Starmer is some generational leader who is going to radically going to change the country over night, as much as we'd all like that.

But we will be better off under his government than this Tory government. He will stabilise things, there won't be such pure greed and corruption at the top. Then we can look at changing things.

You're setting an incredibly low bar given how much shit we've had to put up with.

 

[Ian1779]

Diane Abbott

Think you mean Rachel Reeves there pal

 

[fernandopartridge]

Genuinely, don't you think that a lurch the other way after years of uber-righty policies would spook global affairs at this time? The only party that ever leapt in and did such things was Labour post WW2 (well, maybe Asquith and Lloyd George's Liberal government, but Lloyd George was then seen as suitable to head up a government consisting mostly of Tories!) and the entire world was rebuilding at that time anyway.

Even Thatcher had a relatively moderate first term, where she kept funding British Leyland etc. It was after showing her competence to govern (I know, I know!) that she was emboldened to go properly radical.

We havent even had a manifesto yet, and if (no doubt you'll say when) it veers too far from the 2017 one then yep, I'll agree we need more of that kind of thing. But atm, the winning policy is not being a mentalist who crashes the economy, and not changing leaders every other week while being mired in sleaze and corruption. A bit of stability could well improve things on its own, and then we look to progression. Blair's failing (beyond warmongering!) was not building on that stability after one term. For that term, despite not being a particularly radical government, the country got back on its feet as much because we started talking about society again rather than just casting off and demonising the most oppressed.

Thatcher had a moderate first term is a laughable statement, the unemployment rate by 1982 was the highest it had been since the war.

Public services are in an utterly desperate position, there is no way that any damage can be repaired with some tweaks. It's going to need lots and lots of investment; health, local government, transport, energy all need radical ideas.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Thatcher had a moderate first term is a laughable statement, the unemployment rate by 1982 was the highest it had been since the war.

She did things that would be radical left now, she funded BL ffs!

What is laughable is to decide something is radical based on the unemployment rate.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

We've been absolutely robbed in the last few years, we're becoming the poor man of western Europe.
A look through this thread will throw up dozens of posts hilighting how bad we've had it.

To say we can't undo that, and that we shouldn't do that, is sometbing I really can't understand.

It's not a can't, but it's the old manager thing isn't it, do you come along and throw out everything and shift so radically everybody ends up destabilised, worried, confidence ends up rocked and nobody knows really what they're supposed to be doing, or do you build a foundation of the defence before looking to the attack?

So then you aim to undo things further down the line. Whether that happens or not (Blair) is the key really. Along with the fear that actually you stabilise things enough but the Tories win the election after...

Really, for a bit of security Labour needs the Liberals to improve again, and the new SNP leader to be a total waste of space. What genuinely (naively?) hadn't occurred to me until their leadership election is that they're not by definition a social democratic party, they get people all across the political spectrum who are only united by the goal of independence. That does offer a crack to split with a wrong move or two...

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

It's not a can't, but it's the old manager thing isn't it, do you come along and throw out everything and shift so radically everybody ends up destabilised, worried, confidence ends up rocked and nobody knows really what they're supposed to be doing, or do you build a foundation of the defence before looking to the attack?

So then you aim to undo things further down the line. Whether that happens or not (Blair) is the key really. Along with the fear that actually you stabilise things enough but the Tories win the election after...

Really, for a bit of security Labour needs the Liberals to improve again, and the new SNP leader to be a total waste of space. What genuinely (naively?) hadn't occurred to me until their leadership election is that they're not by definition a social democratic party, they get people all across the political spectrum who are only united by the goal of independence. That does offer a crack to split with a wrong move or two...

It does indeed. But Labour gave up in Scotland years ago. As Liz Kendall once said, ‘we’ve got to be thinking of places like Watford’, those anonymous Home Counties and Middle England seats full of people who will be fine whoever wins.