Starmer & Rayner
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Forest Hillbilly  in a hidey-hole 21 May 22 7.40am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Seemingly, a bit of an odd pairing. Like fire and ice. Or stir-fried chilli ginger and slightly tepid water.
"The facts have changed", Rishi Sunak |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Matov  21 May 22 9.02am |
|
|---|---|
|
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 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.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 21 May 22 10.52am |
|
|---|---|
|
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 a moderator to this post |
|
| Matov 21 May 22 11.00am |
|
|---|---|
|
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.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Jacey 01 Jun 22 10.15am |
|
|---|---|
|
A pitiful Government and an even worse Opposition.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| EverybodyDannsNow SE19 01 Jun 22 10.33am |
|
|---|---|
|
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) I don't get this - Labour are not a socialist party and are not suggesting a socialist government. They have done everything they can to distance themselves from the Corbyn left of the party and economically they are basically centre-right under Starmer. Starmer's Labour seem more wedded to austerity politics than the Tories.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
BlueJay  UK 01 Jun 22 11.35am |
|
|---|---|
|
Dick Dastardly & Muttley?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
ASCPFC  Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 01 Jun 22 11.52am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by BlueJay
Dick Dastardly & Muttley? Not quite Penelope Pitstop anyway.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Fatherken 01 Jun 22 12.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I think with these two in charge Labour will not get elected , even if Boris is in charge for the Tories .
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 01 Jun 22 12.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
I don't get this - Labour are not a socialist party and are not suggesting a socialist government. They have done everything they can to distance themselves from the Corbyn left of the party and economically they are basically centre-right under Starmer. Starmer's Labour seem more wedded to austerity politics than the Tories. Exactly. During the pandemic all we got from Labour is "we'd do the same only better." I think this is a missed opportunity in the past Labour have talked about Scandinavian socialism but they have never been serious about it. It means higher taxes but also universal benefits.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| croydon proud Any european country i fancy! 01 Jun 22 3.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Jacey
A pitiful Government and an even worse Opposition. Perhaps , or perhaps they are leaving britain now because of a weak, ineffective Boris as actual pm now?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| EverybodyDannsNow SE19 01 Jun 22 4.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by croydon proud
Perhaps , or perhaps they are leaving britain now because of a weak, ineffective Boris as actual pm now? No, no - it must be the hypothetical Starmer government in 3 years.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.