Keir Starmer

[bluenova]

Okay let's add a dose of realism here. You will have an opinion and believe its well informed. You don't believe yourself to be stupid or easily led. I will feel exactly the same. Most people also see themselves that way.

To make life easier lets discuss something we agree on. We both think this govt is shite and needs getting rid of. But there will be lots of things we disagree on. Have I been brainwashed on those subjects? Has the media got me? Maybe I'm just stupid so my dislike for the tories must mean the tories are great coz I'm stupid.


The simple fact is self interest and stupidity will be present amongst all supporters of all parties. The media whether it is papers tv or the Internet is full of differing opinions. What are the majority doing? Can they not sell papers or work a phone. Are they incapable of selling their ideas?

Currently the majority of the population are to the left of this government. So I would be asking how is it possible they can have a huge majority. Where do the majority get there views from? It can't be the daily mail.

If a minority rules over the majority who are the daft ones allowing it to happen?

The opposition parties could get rid of them for a long time and make this country better for those who need help. To do it you need the biggest opposition parry onside. That is Labour and they won't do it.

So I shan't be voting for Labour or getting a semi when Starmer in opposition says he will do better. Any fucker can do that.

What won't they do?

 

[bluejon]

He is a lame duck, there is nothing left for him to do without asking his former minions for approval.

The decent thing would be to resign immediately and bring an end to the leadership contest.

I cannot imagine two weeks would make much difference to the voting numbers and result.

the decent thing would be for him to commit seppuku on live tv but it's not likely to happen.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

And covered his back on being missing in action by saying he'd asked colleagues (sorry, tasked colleagues) to come up with concrete proposals, and by not apologising for taking a family holiday. (He could have said "while the government takes a holiday from governing".)

And he got in "my father was a steelworker and my mother a nurse".

Toolmaker, I thought.

It seems pretty reasonable that he'd leave the plans and assessment to actual economist people.

I fully expect the next Conservative asked about Johnson's lack of effort will refer to Starmer going on holiday.

 

[hilts]

What won't they do?

How would you stop a party with a little over 40% of the vote getting a huge majority?

 

[hilts]

The point was well disguised whatever it was.

As for stupid, you want to get rid of this shite government and will be voting Green. How does that work?

In the same way your vote for Labour doesn't get rid of them.

 

[Gabriel]

 

[metalblue]

Toolmaker, I thought.

It seems pretty reasonable that he'd leave the plans and assessment to actual economist people.

I fully expect the next Conservative asked about Johnson's lack of effort will refer to Starmer going on holiday.

I can only presume that the actual economist/realistic people were also on holiday when this “stick your fingers in your ears, sing La-La-La, and pretend it’ll all ok / will go away” policy was dreamt up. The answer for our current crisis is for the political parties to pledge to outspend each other eh? A round of applause please for the hard of thinking who want to lead us.

There is a single cause to this cost of living problem - energy. There is a single cause to energy - supply and demand - specifically a lack of refining capacity. We are where we are.

The hard truth is cheap energy is unlikely to be back ever/any time soon and we have to change - so first thing to accept is; if you can’t afford to use the energy, then don’t. Harsh? Maybe, but it’s also true. Stop using your tumble dryer, reduce the temp on washing machine cycles, does it really need washing?/wear clothes an extra day, stop using your dishwasher, turn off lights, don’t leave things on standby from TV to printer to games consoles to microwave, pack your fridge / freezer more intelligently, etc etc. The average house can save a good 40% doing those relatively simple things. You save money by using less and remove pressure from the demand side.

We can’t pretend that a government spending £29bn capping energy bills for the next 6 months is going to make the problem go away. These bills we be just as high as the supply/demand issues remains or are potentially worse. Only we can make these problems go away - by we I mean everyone in the developed world. We need to stop using as much energy. If the government steps in and picks up the tab then we won’t change or even think about our energy use - we will carry on being as wasteful as ever.

Starmer is saying we don’t need to change - we just need someone else to pay. He’s not alone either, the greens - who should be witnessing their greatest ever relevance - are just as bad if not worse because they are supposed to be the flag bearer for Mother Earth.

Moreover by saving energy we are not only saving ourselves money but we are also indirectly helping those in poorer countries as demand drops reducing the prices for everyone. If we want to go back to being wasteful in years to come I’ve got a few ideas on that but meh, let’s do something good for the planet instead.

 

[joe123]

I can only presume that the actual economist/realistic people were also on holiday when this “stick your fingers in your ears, sing La-La-La, and pretend it’ll all ok / will go away” policy was dreamt up. The answer for our current crisis is for the political parties to pledge to outspend each other eh? A round of applause please for the hard of thinking who want to lead us.

There is a single cause to this cost of living problem - energy. There is a single cause to energy - supply and demand - specifically a lack of refining capacity. We are where we are.

The hard truth is cheap energy is unlikely to be back ever/any time soon and we have to change - so first thing to accept is; if you can’t afford to use the energy, then don’t. Harsh? Maybe, but it’s also true. Stop using your tumble dryer, reduce the temp on washing machine cycles, does it really need washing?/wear clothes an extra day, stop using your dishwasher, turn off lights, don’t leave things on standby from TV to printer to games consoles to microwave, pack your fridge / freezer more intelligently, etc etc. The average house can save a good 40% doing those relatively simple things. You save money by using less and remove pressure from the demand side.

We can’t pretend that a government spending £29bn capping energy bills for the next 6 months is going to make the problem go away. These bills we be just as high as the supply/demand issues remains or are potentially worse. Only we can make these problems go away - by we I mean everyone in the developed world. We need to stop using as much energy. If the government steps in and picks up the tab then we won’t change or even think about our energy use - we will carry on being as wasteful as ever.

Starmer is saying we don’t need to change - we just need someone else to pay. He’s not alone either, the greens - who should be witnessing their greatest ever relevance - are just as bad if not worse because they are supposed to be the flag bearer for Mother Earth.

Moreover by saving energy we are not only saving ourselves money but we are also indirectly helping those in poorer countries as demand drops reducing the prices for everyone. If we want to go back to being wasteful in years to come I’ve got a few ideas on that but meh, let’s do something good for the planet instead.

Whilst I agree that energy use needs to reduce, or come from more sustainable sources, it isn't increased use that's caused this crisis at all. It's blatant profiteering by energy companies.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I can only presume that the actual economist/realistic people were also on holiday when this “stick your fingers in your ears, sing La-La-La, and pretend it’ll all ok / will go away” policy was dreamt up. The answer for our current crisis is for the political parties to pledge to outspend each other eh? A round of applause please for the hard of thinking who want to lead us.

There is a single cause to this cost of living problem - energy. There is a single cause to energy - supply and demand - specifically a lack of refining capacity. We are where we are.

The hard truth is cheap energy is unlikely to be back ever/any time soon and we have to change - so first thing to accept is; if you can’t afford to use the energy, then don’t. Harsh? Maybe, but it’s also true. Stop using your tumble dryer, reduce the temp on washing machine cycles, does it really need washing?/wear clothes an extra day, stop using your dishwasher, turn off lights, don’t leave things on standby from TV to printer to games consoles to microwave, pack your fridge / freezer more intelligently, etc etc. The average house can save a good 40% doing those relatively simple things. You save money by using less and remove pressure from the demand side.

We can’t pretend that a government spending £29bn capping energy bills for the next 6 months is going to make the problem go away. These bills we be just as high as the supply/demand issues remains or are potentially worse. Only we can make these problems go away - by we I mean everyone in the developed world. We need to stop using as much energy. If the government steps in and picks up the tab then we won’t change or even think about our energy use - we will carry on being as wasteful as ever.

Starmer is saying we don’t need to change - we just need someone else to pay. He’s not alone either, the greens - who should be witnessing their greatest ever relevance - are just as bad if not worse because they are supposed to be the flag bearer for Mother Earth.

Moreover by saving energy we are not only saving ourselves money but we are also indirectly helping those in poorer countries as demand drops reducing the prices for everyone. If we want to go back to being wasteful in years to come I’ve got a few ideas on that but meh, let’s do something good for the planet instead.

Longterm change is needed, I agree.
however short term aid is desperately needed.

I'm not going into percentage savings as I have no idea what figures are right, but families may need to use the dryer, especially those with young kids. A family who have budgeted for break even/small profit face a sudden high percentage increase in fuel bill. They can't suddenly magic up a pay rise and there has to be some kind of meaningful idea of how to help them. France capped increase to 4%, I believe ours gave everyone a few hundred quid over several months, but it's only going to be a fraction of the increase.

The govt have to help those in need, and show no sign of having a plan, openly saying that they're not even going to announce everything for another month. People likely to be in need need some reassurance of a safety net, not to be told it's on them.

 

[bluenova]

How would you stop a party with a little over 40% of the vote getting a huge majority?

Is it a guessing game?

I assume you're talking about some kind of formal alliance? Clearly you're not talking about anything informal, as it's pretty well known that Starmer and Ed Davey have agreed to back off where possible from challenging each other in seats where one is favourite. The Tories are already very concerned that this could have a dramatic effect on their chances of winning, and unusually went public with their fears during the last byelections campaigns.

If it's a formal alliance between multiple parties, then I think that's a very bad idea for many reasons, which I'd be happy to share.

 

[west didsblue]

I can only presume that the actual economist/realistic people were also on holiday when this “stick your fingers in your ears, sing La-La-La, and pretend it’ll all ok / will go away” policy was dreamt up. The answer for our current crisis is for the political parties to pledge to outspend each other eh? A round of applause please for the hard of thinking who want to lead us.

There is a single cause to this cost of living problem - energy. There is a single cause to energy - supply and demand - specifically a lack of refining capacity. We are where we are.

The hard truth is cheap energy is unlikely to be back ever/any time soon and we have to change - so first thing to accept is; if you can’t afford to use the energy, then don’t. Harsh? Maybe, but it’s also true. Stop using your tumble dryer, reduce the temp on washing machine cycles, does it really need washing?/wear clothes an extra day, stop using your dishwasher, turn off lights, don’t leave things on standby from TV to printer to games consoles to microwave, pack your fridge / freezer more intelligently, etc etc. The average house can save a good 40% doing those relatively simple things. You save money by using less and remove pressure from the demand side.

We can’t pretend that a government spending £29bn capping energy bills for the next 6 months is going to make the problem go away. These bills we be just as high as the supply/demand issues remains or are potentially worse. Only we can make these problems go away - by we I mean everyone in the developed world. We need to stop using as much energy. If the government steps in and picks up the tab then we won’t change or even think about our energy use - we will carry on being as wasteful as ever.

Starmer is saying we don’t need to change - we just need someone else to pay. He’s not alone either, the greens - who should be witnessing their greatest ever relevance - are just as bad if not worse because they are supposed to be the flag bearer for Mother Earth.

Moreover by saving energy we are not only saving ourselves money but we are also indirectly helping those in poorer countries as demand drops reducing the prices for everyone. If we want to go back to being wasteful in years to come I’ve got a few ideas on that but meh, let’s do something good for the planet instead.

The whole structure of the electricity market needs to change. At present it is based on the cost of the most expensive fuel in the mix which at the moment is gas which leads to excess profiteering for everyone in the industry. I don't know what it would take to change it but if we could get to a position where what we pay is more closely related to the actual generating and distribution costs there could be huge savings for consumers. I suspect the vested interests of the gas suppliers are taking precedence over what would be sensible. If this were to happen there would be even more of an incentive for the cheaper sources to be used thereby reducing the demand for gas for electricity generation and therefore making it cheaper for domestic use.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2022/jan/opinion-renewables-are-cheaper-ever-so-why-are-household-energy-bills-only-going#:~:text=The last fixed-price government,set to face in 2022.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

I can only presume that the actual economist/realistic people were also on holiday when this “stick your fingers in your ears, sing La-La-La, and pretend it’ll all ok / will go away” policy was dreamt up. The answer for our current crisis is for the political parties to pledge to outspend each other eh? A round of applause please for the hard of thinking who want to lead us.

There is a single cause to this cost of living problem - energy. There is a single cause to energy - supply and demand - specifically a lack of refining capacity. We are where we are.

The hard truth is cheap energy is unlikely to be back ever/any time soon and we have to change - so first thing to accept is; if you can’t afford to use the energy, then don’t. Harsh? Maybe, but it’s also true. Stop using your tumble dryer, reduce the temp on washing machine cycles, does it really need washing?/wear clothes an extra day, stop using your dishwasher, turn off lights, don’t leave things on standby from TV to printer to games consoles to microwave, pack your fridge / freezer more intelligently, etc etc. The average house can save a good 40% doing those relatively simple things. You save money by using less and remove pressure from the demand side.

We can’t pretend that a government spending £29bn capping energy bills for the next 6 months is going to make the problem go away. These bills we be just as high as the supply/demand issues remains or are potentially worse. Only we can make these problems go away - by we I mean everyone in the developed world. We need to stop using as much energy. If the government steps in and picks up the tab then we won’t change or even think about our energy use - we will carry on being as wasteful as ever.

Starmer is saying we don’t need to change - we just need someone else to pay. He’s not alone either, the greens - who should be witnessing their greatest ever relevance - are just as bad if not worse because they are supposed to be the flag bearer for Mother Earth.

Moreover by saving energy we are not only saving ourselves money but we are also indirectly helping those in poorer countries as demand drops reducing the prices for everyone. If we want to go back to being wasteful in years to come I’ve got a few ideas on that but meh, let’s do something good for the planet instead.

Starmer must’ve got something right.

 

[Gabriel]

 

[City Hobgoblin]

Just learned of this today.
looks promising.
Would also have implications for schools, hospitals, football clubs (?) to sell surplus green energy to their surrounding communities at affordable prices...

The Community Energy Revolution — Power for People

We have drafted the Local Electricity Bill and are campaigning for it to be made law. This would give electricity generators the right to become local suppliers.

powerforpeople.org.uk

 

[hilts]

Is it a guessing game?

I assume you're talking about some kind of formal alliance? Clearly you're not talking about anything informal, as it's pretty well known that Starmer and Ed Davey have agreed to back off where possible from challenging each other in seats where one is favourite. The Tories are already very concerned that this could have a dramatic effect on their chances of winning, and unusually went public with their fears during the last byelections campaigns.

If it's a formal alliance between multiple parties, then I think that's a very bad idea for many reasons, which I'd be happy to share.

An alliance would be needed pre and post election but if you have an unfair system that isn’t getting us anywhere the only solution is to change the system.

There are only 2 parties that gain from the current system and the Tories have gained the most. They won’t change it so that leaves Labour having to step up. Are they willing to sacrifice full power sporadically for the betterment of the country?

Some posters dream is a Labour govt that will help people short term before the Tories tear it down again. An improvement needs more than a couple of election cycles.

 

[Rascal]

View attachment 50943

Here’s a list of what the “Blairite cunts” achieved in 13 years to help make ordinary people’s lives better.

Compare that to the shit show we’ve had for the last 12 years and tell me which you’d prefer, because they are the only two legitimate choices that exist.

That is the two choices you believe exist.

Why do you not believe in a better UK?

 

[bluethrunthru]

An alliance would be needed pre and post election but if you have an unfair system that isn’t getting us anywhere the only solution is to change the system.

There are only 2 parties that gain from the current system and the Tories have gained the most. They won’t change it so that leaves Labour having to step up. Are they willing to sacrifice full power sporadically for the betterment of the country?

Some posters dream is a Labour govt that will help people short term before the Tories tear it down again. An improvement needs more than a couple of election cycles.

The trick will be is for any coalition to be agreed on the basis of equality - Cleggs urge to get involved got his party fucked over for a decade or more as they were arse fucked by their Tory partners. To go into it to change the electoral system as equals will set the tone for the future - if one tries to take the piss out of another is doomed to fail

 

[Rascal]

Wow that’s some wish list/ manifesto.

Why? its feasible

Your probably talking about East Germany pre unification.

No, that was an authoritarian state.

I wouldn’t argue about somethings on your list.
My question would be how is it going to be paid for.

By rebalancing the economy away from the needs of the owners to the needs of the workers

Higher taxation or further borrowing from the record amounts we are borrowing at the moment
You say you are anti capitalist.

Capitalism serves those with capital

All the self employed and small business owners are mini capitalists to some extent.
If you take away the incentive of reward from hard work and risk taking the Economy would suffer.

Lenin agreed with that. Bet that surprised you.

Also we live in an era of International markets.
Dominant State interference in the free market will not attract inward investment and will just encourage U.K. residents to invest overseas.

The state that will soon overtake the USA as the biggest economy is China, it has a model of state capitalism, by that it uses central control of the economy to invest, something the UK does not do.

I think an equal Society is unachievable because at the end of the day we are all individual human beings with different wants and needs.

You are misreading what is meant by an equitable society, It is not equality of outcome, it is equality of opportunity.

If we were to redistribute wealth, within a short period of time a pattern would re emerge, of the haves and the have nots.

I would love you to explain how that works

I suppose the ones to ask what’s the best system is the East Germans.
Which system do they prefer, pre or post unification.

Ah! throw in a bit of Macarthyism, why not, left is commie right is freedom. Shows a lack of understanding and also ignores the fact many in East Germany have Ostlander regrets.

 

[domalino]

That is the two choices you believe exist.

Why do you not believe in a better UK?

Can we not just admit that the purist left wing labour leader got the absolute shite kicked out of him by the tories at 2 general elections and maybe the only chance of changing governments is with a blairite ****?

There are much more progressive people in the Labour Party than Starmer - many would be in his cabinet - but they can’t actually do anything when they’re in opposition for 2 decades.

 

[Rascal]

Can we not just admit that the purist left wing labour leader got the absolute shite kicked out of him by the tories at 2 general elections and maybe the only chance of changing governments is with a blairite ****?

There are much more progressive people in the Labour Party than Starmer - many would be in his cabinet - but they can’t actually do anything when they’re in opposition for 2 decades.

Can we not just admit that the purist right wing of the Labour party is opposed to any sort of Democratic Socialism and would rather enable a Tory government of right wing extremists than support Socialism

Starmer is removing Socialism from the lexicon, that is admitting defeat to the Tories as he follows them ever rightwards in the pursuit of power.

What is the point of a Labour party who will be just a friendlier version of the Tory party.

There is change in the air, led by Mick Lynch et al and Starmer ignores it. The people do not want another version of reconstructed Thatcherism, they want a strong state that will look after them. They want a govt. that will nationalise our precious resources and essential services, that will raise taxes to pay for essential services. The country is sick to fucking death of right wing nonsense yet Starmer is afraid to upset the Daily Mail FFS,