Keir Starmer at it again..

[Johnny75]

Then tax the wealthy, tax corporations, take control of energy companies... they have plenty of options that don't involve making life shit for ordinary people. They are choosing to make ordinary people pay for the mess, rather than the wealthiest. That is a shit choice for a Labour Government, no matter what way you want to paint it.

This is just never going to happen.

Corbyn lost on something not quite as left as this.

The vast majority of people just don't want what you do

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Then tax the wealthy, tax corporations, take control of energy companies... they have plenty of options that don't involve making life shit for ordinary people. They are choosing to make ordinary people pay for the mess, rather than the wealthiest. That is a shit choice for a Labour Government, no matter what way you want to paint it.

I don't disagree with the first bit.

I don't agree this this is basically Austerity Mk II. Not yet anyway. That's hyperbole because that was a sudden, deliberate hack away at the most vulnerable people in society and a marked move to shrinking the state to 1930s levels. I'm sorry, but I don't give much of a fuck that extremely wealthy old people no longer receive free money every year for no reason whatsoever. Of course you have to make sure that those on the edge of the tipping point don't suffer.

My ambitions were fairly limited back in July. Not having a daily car crash where Government ministers routinely say something stupid, or racist, or do something corrupt, and not have a truly laughable leader running the clownshow (I mean fucking hell, David Cameron is the most accomplished PM that the Tories put up, and he left in 2016).

I'm not fully signed up to Starmerism because I don't know what it is yet and I doubt anyone will for at least six months.

 

[sycophantia]

It's not about what they have or haven't achieved in 2 months. It's about the message they are putting out, which differs very little from the the message of the Tories. They could at least offer a vision of hope, instead they want to hide behind the 'mess we were left' message. You can bury your head in the sand and pretend they'll suddenly change and actually make a difference or you could believe what you're actually seeing, which is that they are firmly hand in hand with the corporate lobbyists.

I don't expect them to 'suddenly' change at anytime, I'm hoping they make progressive changes that over time make life better for everyone. I'm not sure what the alternative was for voters.
As I said, they may turn out to be complete arse wipes but we'll see.
BTW there is nothing wrong with you calling out individual measures which you think are wrong, it's just the general moaning about how they're worse than the last lot that's galling atm.

 

[sycophantia]

I don't disagree with the first bit.

I don't agree this this is basically Austerity Mk II. Not yet anyway. That's hyperbole because that was a sudden, deliberate hack away at the most vulnerable people in society and a marked move to shrinking the state to 1930s levels. I'm sorry, but I don't give much of a fuck that extremely wealthy old people no longer receive free money every year for no reason whatsoever. Of course you have to make sure that those on the edge of the tipping point don't suffer.

My ambitions were fairly limited back in July. Not having a daily car crash where Government ministers routinely say something stupid, or racist, or do something corrupt, and not have a truly laughable leader running the clownshow (I mean fucking hell, David Cameron is the most accomplished PM that the Tories put up, and he left in 2016).

I'm not fully signed up to Starmerism because I don't know what it is yet and I doubt anyone will for at least six months.

I don't want any wealthy people, of any age to get free money, more than happy for all benefits to be means tested, I do think where they set the limits and how they organise benefits needs looking at, for example the winter fuel allowance being set at 332 quid per week seems a blunt instrument to me.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Once again though it's a hell of a lot to unpick. The equivalent of opening up that drawer you've not touched for 14 years, and it's full of various wires and adapters, and you need to untangle them and then work out which one actually does what.

Universal Credit is a uniquely Tory mess and you can't just magic up a solution.

 

[Dire Wolf]

This is just never going to happen.

Corbyn lost on something not quite as left as this.

The vast majority of people just don't want what you do

I think you're wrong. I think the majority people do want this, it just isn't the message that is put over. Corbyn didn't lose because of his manifesto. When people were presented with the manifesto without saying whose it was it was popular. Corbyn lost because people didn't like Corbyn and the sustained negative press that he was subjected to (some undoubtedly self-inflicted).

 

[sycophantia]

I think you're wrong. I think the majority people do want this, it just isn't the message that is put over. Corbyn didn't lose because of his manifesto. When people were presented with the manifesto without saying whose it was it was popular. Corbyn lost because people didn't like Corbyn and the sustained negative press that he was subjected to (some undoubtedly self-inflicted).

Not sure about this, don't think there's been an appetite for that type of politics since the mid 70s.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Not sure about this, don't think there's been an appetite for that type of politics since the mid 70s.

 

[sycophantia]

View attachment 11511

Not sure what this is supposed to prove, remind me how many left leaning govts weve had since Maggie broke Labour.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Not sure what this is supposed to prove, remind me how many left leaning govts weve had since Maggie broke Labour.

Well it is clear isn't it? It proves you wrong, there was an appetite for Corbyn's policies, more people voted for him than Starmer.

He couldn't get it over the line, for all manner of different reasons but to suggest there wasn't an appetite for it is clearly wrong.

 

[sycophantia]

Well it is clear isn't it? It proves you wrong, there was an appetite for Corbyn's policies, more people voted for him than Starmer.

He couldn't get it over the line, for all manner of different reasons but to suggest there wasn't an appetite for it is clearly wrong.

An appetite among the general public I'm talking about, completely pointless being popular in your own party if you can't get into power.
The party that gets into power in this country is usually what the floating voter considers the least worst.

 

[Dire Wolf]

Not sure about this, don't think there's been an appetite for that type of politics since the mid 70s.

It's almost as if the consolidation and concentration of media ownership since the 1980s and the message that people are happy with the vast inequalities in wealth are purely coincidence...

 

[sycophantia]

It's almost as if the consolidation and concentration of media ownership since the 1980s and the message that people are happy with the vast inequalities in wealth are purely coincidence...

Of course that's true, although I think less happy more selfish.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

I don't want any wealthy people, of any age to get free money, more than happy for all benefits to be means tested, I do think where they set the limits and how they organise benefits needs looking at, for example the winter fuel allowance being set at 332 quid per week seems a blunt instrument to me.

I do...I want there to be a universal basic income and no benefits, and therefore no means testing. That would mean very wealthy people could still get UBI if they wished.

 

[Johnny75]

I think you're wrong. I think the majority people do want this, it just isn't the message that is put over. Corbyn didn't lose because of his manifesto. When people were presented with the manifesto without saying whose it was it was popular. Corbyn lost because people didn't like Corbyn and the sustained negative press that he was subjected to (some undoubtedly self-inflicted).

We've just had 3 general elections that say otherwise.

If the vast majority wanted what you described they'd have voted for it when they had the chance.

They didn't.

 

[sycophantia]

I do...I want there to be a universal basic income and no benefits, and therefore no means testing. That would mean very wealthy people could still get UBI if they wished.

That's a really worthy ambition, I think everyone on this forum thinks the same, not sure I'll see it in my lifetime.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

We've just had 3 general elections that say otherwise.

If the vast majority wanted what you described they'd have voted for it when they had the chance.

They didn't.

The "vast majority" rarely vote for the government. The last UK election where that happened was 1935's Conservative landslide or possibly the Con/Lib Dem coalition in 2010.

More people voted for Corbyn's Labour (twice) than for Starmer. I know that's the point Dire Wolf is making and I know you know that too.

But Dire Wolf, you can't say that the "majority of people" want something when that plainly isn't true. Even a left winger like me accepts that Corbyn's 2017 election was as much (if not more) a coalition of remain voters as it was the policies. In 2017, had Corbyn got firmly on the "remain train" he might well have crossed the line and been PM in coalition with the Lib Dems, we would have had a second referendum and would be back (or on the way back) into the EU.

 

[Dire Wolf]

Of course that's true, although I think less happy more selfish.

Again, who is promoting the message that people are selfish? Whose interest is it in to constantly force feed us that idea? People are not inherently selfish, a look at how well supported huge numbers of charities are, how community groups come together in times of need, how generous ordinary people are with their time. This is how humans are, it is capitalism that forces the selfish narrative because it justifies the enormous wealth hoarding that goes on. It justifies the destruction of communities, the concentration of businesses into the hands of vast conglomerates at the expense of small businesses. Most people don't want that. Most people want good public services, a functioning NHS, a fair and efficient energy supply. Most people don't want a constant desire for economic growth at the expense of the planet. Most people don't want wealth hoarding billionaires and abject poverty for the majority. We have just become conditioned not to fight it. And like all conditioning, it can be reversed.

 

[Tony Towner]

Or they could go down the Johnson route and just blatantly lie?

It IS a mess.

It is, but not pensioner winter fuel payments would crash the economy size of a mess. I actually support that, just not the weaselly way they've tried to justify it.

 

[EpsomWolf]

Jas Athwal: London Renters' Union calls for landlord MP to resign

Jas Athwal says he is "sickened" by the state of his rental flats and pledged to resolve the issues.

www.bbc.co.uk

So the crook firstly binned off his management agency in a shameful attempt at deflecting blame and is now chasing his tail as the noose tightens.

Redbridge council also shitting themselves as their negligent lack of enforcement has been exposed but it appears the conservative leader smells blood and is urging investigation, so must be confident he can pin culpability entirely on Athwal. Their carefully worded statement around working with Landlords and the SL register conveniently ignores their own elephant in the room but the onus must be 100% on Athwal.

The London Renters Union are no fools either and are pressing on the housing law violations and with Athwal acknowledging he doesn’t have licences despite previous claims he did (aka he can’t be trusted and blatantly lied) so his credibility is completely shot.

Not a good look for Kier or Ang to have an dodgy unlicensed landlord batting for them and going to be interesting to see if they try and let this blow over in a blame-game smokescreen or get on with it and do what’s right.