You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Starmer & Rayner
May 26 2022 3.52am

Starmer & Rayner

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 10 of 10 << First< 6 7 8 9 10

 

View Forest Hillbilly's Profile Forest Hillbilly Flag in a hidey-hole 21 May 22 7.40am Send a Private Message to Forest Hillbilly Add Forest Hillbilly as a friend

Seemingly, a bit of an odd pairing. Like fire and ice. Or stir-fried chilli ginger and slightly tepid water.
Starmer has had plenty to get his teeth into, but seemed to wave the white flag over Covid and Ukraine, in order to let the Government "get on with the job".
Starmer's legal background appears to be a hinderance to be an effective critic of anything Government does. Rayner seems a mis-match because she wants to call things out with language that is so borderline as to take attention from the subject at hand , to focus on the ferocity of her linguistics.

 


,.,.,..,

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Matov's Profile Matov Flag 21 May 22 9.02am Send a Private Message to Matov Add Matov as a friend

Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly

Seemingly, a bit of an odd pairing. Like fire and ice. Or stir-fried chilli ginger and slightly tepid water.
Starmer has had plenty to get his teeth into, but seemed to wave the white flag over Covid and Ukraine, in order to let the Government "get on with the job".
Starmer's legal background appears to be a hinderance to be an effective critic of anything Government does. Rayner seems a mis-match because she wants to call things out with language that is so borderline as to take attention from the subject at hand , to focus on the ferocity of her linguistics.

Starmer and Rayner are not a 'partnership'. There is no sense of synergy about them. Think of it as a marriage of convenience in which they don't even live in the same house, let alone share a bed.

She is there to placate the left of the party. That's it. Meant to be their 'voice' in the senior leadership.

And whilst I think Starmer is everything you probably do, let's not forget that Covid has been the great disrupter. History changing. Even defining the next 20 years or so, just like the September 11th attacks in 2001 did for the next couple of decades. There was no correct way of handling it on any political level, merely just trying to ensure that as little s*** as possible landed on you and trying to survive the fallout.

Plus Ukraine. The people who Starmer answers too are the ones most vocal in backing it. With Johnson on the same side as them. What can more can he do to 'oppose' it?

Ironically, Corbyn's economic policies are probably more popular than ever. 2017. 40% of the vote. Never forget that. Then Starmer decided to get himself a standing ovation at the 2018 Labour party conference and the rest is history.

We do not live in a time in which any conventional political metric seems to matter anymore. The game is now played by different rules. We just have to play catch up.

 


In 1967, when Polish mercenary Rafal Ganowicz was asked what it felt like to take human life, replied: "I wouldn't know, I've only ever killed communists."

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 21 May 22 10.52am Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Chatting to my Danish neighbour about life over there and came to this conclusion.

Socialism in this country is all about helping the poor whilst taxing the better off. (I am trying to be fair).

Socialism in Scandinavia has the same aim however in order to make it more acceptable to the people who will be paying for it everybody is entitled to the same level of benefits.

I do not understand how Labour have not accepted this. If you want the tax paying middle classes to vote for you offer them a carrot.

After 30 years of paying the higher rate of tax I was briefly unemployed for 6 weeks. The oik at the job centre told me I was not entitled to anything. You can imagine how I felt that others who have never paid anything get "theirs" whilst I was told to go whistle.

If I was a Labour supporter I would be arguing for universal benefits.

Edited by Badger11 (21 May 2022 10.53am)

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Matov's Profile Matov Flag 21 May 22 11.00am Send a Private Message to Matov Add Matov as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

Chatting to my Danish neighbour about life over there and came to this conclusion.

Socialism in this country is all about helping the poor whilst taxing the better off. (I am trying to be fair).

Socialism in Scandinavia has the same aim however in order to make it more acceptable to the people who will be paying for it everybody is entitled to the same level of benefits.

I do not understand how Labour have not accepted this. If you want the tax paying middle classes to vote for you offer them a carrot.

After 30 years of paying the higher rate of tax I was briefly unemployed for 6 weeks. The oik at the job centre told me I was not entitled to anything. You can imagine how I felt that others who have never paid anything get "theirs" whilst I was told to go whistle.

If I was a Labour supporter I would be arguing for universal benefits.

Edited by Badger11 (21 May 2022 10.53am)

Universal benefits, a simplified tax system which is applied across the board on all income, ideas that have validity. But we have a political class who are not interested in making things simple. To many vested interests in the complexity. This is the ultimate failure of our modern democracy.

 


In 1967, when Polish mercenary Rafal Ganowicz was asked what it felt like to take human life, replied: "I wouldn't know, I've only ever killed communists."

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 10 of 10 << First< 6 7 8 9 10

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Starmer & Rayner