|
Post by andystokey on Dec 4, 2023 13:21:24 GMT
One of the amusing and very sad things today Is all those planning to put there x in the box marked labour at the next election Are voting for a party who’s leader is busy praising good old Maggie You need to read the whole piece instead of just going by the headlines for effect, waga! He singles out Attlee, Thatcher and Blair as leaders who had significant impact on the UK. You wouldn't know that, of course, just going by the headlines! I have read the article and I'm still very pissed off by it as will anyone impacted by her negatively in the 1980s, which runs into millions of people that had previously voted Labour. I respect it doesn't seem to bother you or Oggy. Equally I hope you will accept that trivialising it as a headline is apologist. Stamer has got enough track record on various issues now to convince me that this isn't about getting into power and suddenly becoming a socialist. He's as wedded to centre right politics as it is possible to be. His views aren't even particularly liberal with a small l. If that's where the majority of the UK is now, fair enough. It's not where many of past Labour voters are including me.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Dec 4, 2023 13:24:00 GMT
You need to read the whole piece instead of just going by the headlines for effect, waga! He singles out Attlee, Thatcher and Blair as leaders who had significant impact on the UK. You wouldn't know that, of course, just going by the headlines! I have read the article and I'm still very pissed off by it as will anyone impacted by her negatively in the 1980s, which runs into millions of people that had previously voted Labour. I respect it doesn't seem to bother you or Oggy. Equally I hope you will accept that trivialising it as a headline is apologist. Stamer has got enough track record on various issues now to convince me that this isn't about getting into power and suddenly becoming a socialist. He's as wedded to centre right politics as it is possible to be. His views aren't even particularly liberal with a small l. If that's where the majority of the UK is now, fair enough. It's not where many of past Labour voters are including me. Well said.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Dec 4, 2023 15:00:44 GMT
You need to read the whole piece instead of just going by the headlines for effect, waga! He singles out Attlee, Thatcher and Blair as leaders who had significant impact on the UK. You wouldn't know that, of course, just going by the headlines! I have read the article and I'm still very pissed off by it as will anyone impacted by her negatively in the 1980s, which runs into millions of people that had previously voted Labour. I respect it doesn't seem to bother you or Oggy. Equally I hope you will accept that trivialising it as a headline is apologist. Stamer has got enough track record on various issues now to convince me that this isn't about getting into power and suddenly becoming a socialist. He's as wedded to centre right politics as it is possible to be. His views aren't even particularly liberal with a small l. If that's where the majority of the UK is now, fair enough. It's not where many of past Labour voters are including me. I've voted Labour at every election since I was 18 and intended doing exactly the same next year but in the last month, Starmer has completely lost me.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Dec 4, 2023 15:05:08 GMT
surely if salaries are 33% higher then labour cost to business is 33% higher plus employers NI of 13.8% therefore prices will be 37.5 % higher assuning profits aren't increased . but we all know that profit will be maintained by businesses so the result is job losses or higher prices ?
oh , sorry , thats a labour manifesto .
A number of posts recently bemoan people reading the headline and not the content. You have just done exactly the same thing If you read the detail it is a Study conducted jointly by the Resolution Foundation and LSE on UK Economic Stagnation since 2008 and its effect on Salaries, amongst other things The premise is that if UK Economy had grown at a similar rate over the last 15 years as it did in previous years the Salaries quoted would be the result and in line with European Peers And no prices would not have increased alongside as Profits generated associated with growth would have maintained the profit margin. What would have changed is that Treasury would have received additional taxes from those profits to spend on Public Services And yes I expect it will be part of Labour Manifesto as Resolution Foundation are presenting their findings today at a Seminar where Keir Starmer will be Interviewed by Zanny Minton Beddoes Editor of The Economist on how Labour would arrest the appalling Economic Performance of the last 15 years
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Dec 4, 2023 15:13:37 GMT
You need to read the whole piece instead of just going by the headlines for effect, waga! He singles out Attlee, Thatcher and Blair as leaders who had significant impact on the UK. You wouldn't know that, of course, just going by the headlines! I have read the article and I'm still very pissed off by it as will anyone impacted by her negatively in the 1980s, which runs into millions of people that had previously voted Labour. I respect it doesn't seem to bother you or Oggy. Equally I hope you will accept that trivialising it as a headline is apologist. Stamer has got enough track record on various issues now to convince me that this isn't about getting into power and suddenly becoming a socialist. He's as wedded to centre right politics as it is possible to be. His views aren't even particularly liberal with a small l. If that's where the majority of the UK is now, fair enough. It's not where many of past Labour voters are including me. Starmer could easily have qualified his comments to say some leaders like Atlee and Blair had a positive effect on all sections of Society while Thacher impacted many negatively In his mission to thoroughly distance himself from Corbyn he's gone full hog and embraced Thatcher ffs
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Dec 4, 2023 15:29:47 GMT
You need to read the whole piece instead of just going by the headlines for effect, waga! He singles out Attlee, Thatcher and Blair as leaders who had significant impact on the UK. You wouldn't know that, of course, just going by the headlines! I have read the article and I'm still very pissed off by it as will anyone impacted by her negatively in the 1980s, which runs into millions of people that had previously voted Labour. I respect it doesn't seem to bother you or Oggy. Equally I hope you will accept that trivialising it as a headline is apologist. Stamer has got enough track record on various issues now to convince me that this isn't about getting into power and suddenly becoming a socialist. He's as wedded to centre right politics as it is possible to be. His views aren't even particularly liberal with a small l. If that's where the majority of the UK is now, fair enough. It's not where many of past Labour voters are including me. Fair enough. I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, Andy, but I'd be surprised if many people, including yourself, thought that Starmer would suddenly become a socialist once he was in power. My opinion of him hasn't changed one bit by this article in which he identifies those British leaders who effected meaningful change. There's not a fat lot of actual praise there for Thatcher, but that doesn't make such a good story, obviously. Starmer's a centrist first and foremost, soft left, much like his deputy. Everything he's done as leader is about bringing the party back to the centre ground in order to get it elected after the debacle of 2019. I fully respect your decision to be appalled by the article, although I suspect that's more about how it's been portrayed rather than Starmer actually threatening to become a Thatcherite! We'll have to wait and see what he does in power, if he gets there. This latest article is about doing exactly what Blair did. Don't frighten the horses! It's the only way to get elected in Conservative England - you can try the alternative approach like Corbyn did and, as much as you and I might recognise that a lot of what he said has come to pass, there was no way he was ever going to get voted in. The media saw to that, turning people against him until he got his arse handed to him in spectacular style at the last election. They haven't got anywhere to go with Starmer. But wouldn't it be lovely if we could both vote for parties we genuinely aligned with and saw actual representation in the HoC according to actual voting percentages. Another clarion call for PR.
|
|
|
Post by phileetin on Dec 4, 2023 15:30:33 GMT
surely if salaries are 33% higher then labour cost to business is 33% higher plus employers NI of 13.8% therefore prices will be 37.5 % higher assuning profits aren't increased . but we all know that profit will be maintained by businesses so the result is job losses or higher prices ?
oh , sorry , thats a labour manifesto .
A number of posts recently bemoan people reading the headline and not the content. You have just done exactly the same thing If you read the detail it is a Study conducted jointly by the Resolution Foundation and LSE on UK Economic Stagnation since 2008 and its effect on Salaries, amongst other things The premise is that if UK Economy had grown at a similar rate over the last 15 years as it did in previous years the Salaries quoted would be the result and in line with European Peers And no prices would not have increased alongside as Profits generated associated with growth would have maintained the profit margin. What would have changed is that Treasury would have received additional taxes from those profits to spend on Public Services And yes I expect it will be part of Labour Manifesto as Resolution Foundation are presenting their findings today at a Seminar where Keir Starmer will be Interviewed by Zanny Minton Beddoes Editor of The Economist on how Labour would arrest the appalling Economic Performance of the last 15 years
i don't understand that , so i'm showing how thick i am now .
prices don't go up margins are maintained
wages paid go up (by 33%)
profits are maintained .
who's paying the wages ?
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Dec 4, 2023 15:52:04 GMT
I have read the article and I'm still very pissed off by it as will anyone impacted by her negatively in the 1980s, which runs into millions of people that had previously voted Labour. I respect it doesn't seem to bother you or Oggy. Equally I hope you will accept that trivialising it as a headline is apologist. Stamer has got enough track record on various issues now to convince me that this isn't about getting into power and suddenly becoming a socialist. He's as wedded to centre right politics as it is possible to be. His views aren't even particularly liberal with a small l. If that's where the majority of the UK is now, fair enough. It's not where many of past Labour voters are including me. I've voted Labour at every election since I was 18 and intended doing exactly the same next year but in the last month, Starmer has completely lost me. Agree Paul - every day he's making it more difficult to vote for him.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Dec 4, 2023 16:39:51 GMT
A number of posts recently bemoan people reading the headline and not the content. You have just done exactly the same thing If you read the detail it is a Study conducted jointly by the Resolution Foundation and LSE on UK Economic Stagnation since 2008 and its effect on Salaries, amongst other things The premise is that if UK Economy had grown at a similar rate over the last 15 years as it did in previous years the Salaries quoted would be the result and in line with European Peers And no prices would not have increased alongside as Profits generated associated with growth would have maintained the profit margin. What would have changed is that Treasury would have received additional taxes from those profits to spend on Public Services And yes I expect it will be part of Labour Manifesto as Resolution Foundation are presenting their findings today at a Seminar where Keir Starmer will be Interviewed by Zanny Minton Beddoes Editor of The Economist on how Labour would arrest the appalling Economic Performance of the last 15 years
i don't understand that , so i'm showing how thick i am now .
prices don't go up margins are maintained
wages paid go up (by 33%)
profits are maintained .
who's paying the wages ?
When a Company/Country experiences Growth of course the base price increases in line with inflation and costs, i.e. Wages move in the same direction but profit margins remain the same. Tax take has also increased as Company Profits have also increased by the volume of Growth. In Economics this is called Equilibrium. When Growth is Stagnant so too are wages and the increase in inflation causes a real terms fall in Wages. Government Tax Return is also Stagnant so it is forced to increase Company/Personal Tax to provide the same level of Public Services due to costs other than wages which have increased with inflation
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Dec 4, 2023 16:40:36 GMT
I have read the article and I'm still very pissed off by it as will anyone impacted by her negatively in the 1980s, which runs into millions of people that had previously voted Labour. I respect it doesn't seem to bother you or Oggy. Equally I hope you will accept that trivialising it as a headline is apologist. Stamer has got enough track record on various issues now to convince me that this isn't about getting into power and suddenly becoming a socialist. He's as wedded to centre right politics as it is possible to be. His views aren't even particularly liberal with a small l. If that's where the majority of the UK is now, fair enough. It's not where many of past Labour voters are including me. Fair enough. I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, Andy, but I'd be surprised if many people, including yourself, thought that Starmer would suddenly become a socialist once he was in power. My opinion of him hasn't changed one bit by this article in which he identifies those British leaders who effected meaningful change. There's not a fat lot of actual praise there for Thatcher, but that doesn't make such a good story, obviously. Starmer's a centrist first and foremost, soft left, much like his deputy. Everything he's done as leader is about bringing the party back to the centre ground in order to get it elected after the debacle of 2019. I fully respect your decision to be appalled by the article, although I suspect that's more about how it's been portrayed rather than Starmer actually threatening to become a Thatcherite! We'll have to wait and see what he does in power, if he gets there. This latest article is about doing exactly what Blair did. Don't frighten the horses! It's the only way to get elected in Conservative England - you can try the alternative approach like Corbyn did and, as much as you and I might recognise that a lot of what he said has come to pass, there was no way he was ever going to get voted in. The media saw to that, turning people against him until he got his arse handed to him in spectacular style at the last election. They haven't got anywhere to go with Starmer. But wouldn't it be lovely if we could both vote for parties we genuinely aligned with and saw actual representation in the HoC according to actual voting percentages. Another clarion call for PR. I agree with what wannabee said if Stamer's quote had been about conviction politicians I would probably not have such a difficult challenge. She did have conviction and undoubtedly changed Britain. He chose to highlight a positive of her tenure, "entrepreneurial spirit". Rather than point out the giveaway of the family jewels to her city backers and a class war. He just left it it ambiguous enough to pacify Tory voters and the media moguls and he did it on purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Dec 4, 2023 18:03:45 GMT
Migration - anyone believe the latest Tory proclamation on it?
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Dec 4, 2023 18:23:50 GMT
Migration - anyone believe the latest Tory proclamation on it? Nope!!
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Dec 4, 2023 18:39:52 GMT
Fair enough. I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, Andy, but I'd be surprised if many people, including yourself, thought that Starmer would suddenly become a socialist once he was in power. My opinion of him hasn't changed one bit by this article in which he identifies those British leaders who effected meaningful change. There's not a fat lot of actual praise there for Thatcher, but that doesn't make such a good story, obviously. Starmer's a centrist first and foremost, soft left, much like his deputy. Everything he's done as leader is about bringing the party back to the centre ground in order to get it elected after the debacle of 2019. I fully respect your decision to be appalled by the article, although I suspect that's more about how it's been portrayed rather than Starmer actually threatening to become a Thatcherite! We'll have to wait and see what he does in power, if he gets there. This latest article is about doing exactly what Blair did. Don't frighten the horses! It's the only way to get elected in Conservative England - you can try the alternative approach like Corbyn did and, as much as you and I might recognise that a lot of what he said has come to pass, there was no way he was ever going to get voted in. The media saw to that, turning people against him until he got his arse handed to him in spectacular style at the last election. They haven't got anywhere to go with Starmer. But wouldn't it be lovely if we could both vote for parties we genuinely aligned with and saw actual representation in the HoC according to actual voting percentages. Another clarion call for PR. I agree with what wannabee said if Stamer's quote had been about conviction politicians I would probably not have such a difficult challenge. She did have conviction and undoubtedly changed Britain. He chose to highlight a positive of her tenure, "entrepreneurial spirit". Rather than point out the giveaway of the family jewels to her city backers and a class war. He just left it it ambiguous enough to pacify Tory voters and the media moguls and he did it on purpose. Yes, of course, he did, that's what I said above. And aside from the optics and tactics of it, let's see what he actually does if and when in power. If he allocates the proceeds of said "entrepreneurial spirit" towards health, education and social care, ie things that will make ordinary folks' lives better, does it really matter what he said about Thatcher? Or, if you hate Thatcher, is it simply the case that the only 'acceptable' reference to her has to be negative? I find that odd. All PMs do some good stuff, some bad stuff, to greater or lesser degrees of each. Johnson and Truss were overwhelmingly awful but even within their tenures (perhaps not Truss!) there will be aspects that are positive. Same applies to Thatcher and Blair. Failing to recognise or acknowledge that would be somewhat one-eyed and plain wrong.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Dec 4, 2023 18:44:52 GMT
Everybody's talking about a May/June election. Makes sense. Sunak needs to mobilise the silver tops and better weather helps with that. In which case, I'm assuming that income tax will be headline grabber in the Spring budget. What do we reckon? 2p off basic rate? I think they'll really go for broke on the basis that they've nothing to lose and, if they do, the incoming govt has much less revenue to play with to try to put the mess right. I'm with Badger, it's Nige splitting the vote they need to worry about. Kingmaker. He’s ignoring you because he knows it makes sense😉
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Dec 4, 2023 19:01:44 GMT
I'm with Badger, it's Nige splitting the vote they need to worry about. Kingmaker. He’s ignoring you because he knows it makes sense😉 I don't know about it making sense in any way, but I hope he's right. It'll completely fuck up the right-wing vote 😀
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Dec 4, 2023 19:02:28 GMT
He’s ignoring you because he knows it makes sense😉 I don't know about it making sense in any way, but I hope he's right. It'll completely fuck up the right-wing vote 😀 What right wing? There is no right wing, you’re deluded.
|
|
|
Post by satoshi on Dec 4, 2023 19:07:29 GMT
What’s the plan with the care sector now then?
150,000 job vacancies and they’re penalising bloody foreigners who want to bring their families whilst working in the sector.
Train the boat people up? Volunteers? Get fat lazy brits off benefits?
They’ll sack them all when they engineer the next pandemic anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Dec 4, 2023 19:08:57 GMT
I don't know about it making sense in any way, but I hope he's right. It'll completely fuck up the right-wing vote 😀 What right wing? There is no right wing, you’re deluded. Sorry, I forgot, everybody's a woke, lefty these days, aren't they, including the entire Tory government, parliamentary party, its membership, Tory media and voters...🤣
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Dec 4, 2023 19:10:21 GMT
What right wing? There is no right wing, you’re deluded. Sorry, I forgot, everybody's a woke, lefty these days, aren't they, including the entire Tory government, parliamentary party, its membership, Tory media and voters...🤣 I‘m glad you’ve finally seen sense. Well done Bluers👏🏻
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Dec 4, 2023 19:10:59 GMT
What’s the plan with the care sector now then? 150,000 job vacancies and they’re penalising bloody foreigners who want to bring their families whilst working in the sector. Train the boat people up? Volunteers? Get fat lazy brits off benefits? They’ll sack them all when they engineer the next pandemic anyway. It's just another element of the scorched earth policy that the moribund government is following to fuck the country up and make it harder for the next government. Patriots, the lot of them...
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Dec 4, 2023 19:12:11 GMT
Sorry, I forgot, everybody's a woke, lefty these days, aren't they, including the entire Tory government, parliamentary party, its membership, Tory media and voters...🤣 I‘m glad you’ve finally seen sense. Well done Bluers👏🏻 What does a right-winger stand for in your eyes, Badge?
|
|
|
Post by satoshi on Dec 4, 2023 19:14:11 GMT
What’s the plan with the care sector now then? 150,000 job vacancies and they’re penalising bloody foreigners who want to bring their families whilst working in the sector. Train the boat people up? Volunteers? Get fat lazy brits off benefits? They’ll sack them all when they engineer the next pandemic anyway. It's just another element of the scorched earth policy that the moribund government is following to fuck the country up and make it harder for the next government. Patriots, the lot of them... There’s no such thing as democracy. You’ve wasted your life.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Dec 4, 2023 19:14:36 GMT
I‘m glad you’ve finally seen sense. Well done Bluers👏🏻 What does a right-winger stand for in your eyes, Badge? So his arse doesn’t go numb
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Dec 4, 2023 19:18:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Dec 4, 2023 19:20:19 GMT
What does a right-winger stand for in your eyes, Badge? So his arse doesn’t go numb
|
|
|
Post by henry on Dec 4, 2023 19:21:52 GMT
What is being compared in the article, is it uk average pay v French and German average pay ?
|
|
|
Post by scfcno1fan on Dec 4, 2023 20:20:00 GMT
What’s the plan with the care sector now then? 150,000 job vacancies and they’re penalising bloody foreigners who want to bring their families whilst working in the sector. Train the boat people up? Volunteers? Get fat lazy brits off benefits? They’ll sack them all when they engineer the next pandemic anyway. Yep. Struggling to understand why they would bring in such rules. Give it a year and the social care sector will be in even greater disarray than it is now.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Dec 4, 2023 20:30:09 GMT
You need to read the whole piece instead of just going by the headlines for effect, waga! He singles out Attlee, Thatcher and Blair as leaders who had significant impact on the UK. You wouldn't know that, of course, just going by the headlines! I have read the article and I'm still very pissed off by it as will anyone impacted by her negatively in the 1980s, which runs into millions of people that had previously voted Labour. I respect it doesn't seem to bother you or Oggy. Equally I hope you will accept that trivialising it as a headline is apologist. Stamer has got enough track record on various issues now to convince me that this isn't about getting into power and suddenly becoming a socialist. He's as wedded to centre right politics as it is possible to be. His views aren't even particularly liberal with a small l. If that's where the majority of the UK is now, fair enough. It's not where many of past Labour voters are including me. Come on then, tell me how centre right the following are: 1. Vat on private school fees 2. Increasing windfall taxes on energy companies 3. Abolishing non-dom status 4. Creating a nationalised green energy company For a man constantly criticised for having no policies and for being centre right, I have name 4 clear policies which prove both criticism completely wrong.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Dec 4, 2023 20:36:31 GMT
Fair enough. I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, Andy, but I'd be surprised if many people, including yourself, thought that Starmer would suddenly become a socialist once he was in power. My opinion of him hasn't changed one bit by this article in which he identifies those British leaders who effected meaningful change. There's not a fat lot of actual praise there for Thatcher, but that doesn't make such a good story, obviously. Starmer's a centrist first and foremost, soft left, much like his deputy. Everything he's done as leader is about bringing the party back to the centre ground in order to get it elected after the debacle of 2019. I fully respect your decision to be appalled by the article, although I suspect that's more about how it's been portrayed rather than Starmer actually threatening to become a Thatcherite! We'll have to wait and see what he does in power, if he gets there. This latest article is about doing exactly what Blair did. Don't frighten the horses! It's the only way to get elected in Conservative England - you can try the alternative approach like Corbyn did and, as much as you and I might recognise that a lot of what he said has come to pass, there was no way he was ever going to get voted in. The media saw to that, turning people against him until he got his arse handed to him in spectacular style at the last election. They haven't got anywhere to go with Starmer. But wouldn't it be lovely if we could both vote for parties we genuinely aligned with and saw actual representation in the HoC according to actual voting percentages. Another clarion call for PR. I agree with what wannabee said if Stamer's quote had been about conviction politicians I would probably not have such a difficult challenge. She did have conviction and undoubtedly changed Britain. He chose to highlight a positive of her tenure, "entrepreneurial spirit". Rather than point out the giveaway of the family jewels to her city backers and a class war. He just left it it ambiguous enough to pacify Tory voters and the media moguls and he did it on purpose. I think he knows how to play the game.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Dec 4, 2023 20:48:12 GMT
I have read the article and I'm still very pissed off by it as will anyone impacted by her negatively in the 1980s, which runs into millions of people that had previously voted Labour. I respect it doesn't seem to bother you or Oggy. Equally I hope you will accept that trivialising it as a headline is apologist. Stamer has got enough track record on various issues now to convince me that this isn't about getting into power and suddenly becoming a socialist. He's as wedded to centre right politics as it is possible to be. His views aren't even particularly liberal with a small l. If that's where the majority of the UK is now, fair enough. It's not where many of past Labour voters are including me. Come on then, tell me how centre right the following are: 1. Vat on private school fees 2. Increasing windfall taxes on energy companies 3. Abolishing non-dom status 4. Creating a nationalised green energy company How centre right is: 1. Raising minimum wage significantly 2. Increasing Job Seekers Allowance 3. 30 hours a week free childcare 4. Changes to bring prepayment meters in line with the costs those on direct debit pay. I know you and redwhiteblue LOVE starmer but in todays climate the policies which he hasn't yet u turned on aren't particularly inspiring in the slightest. Ed Davey gives me more confidence in helping those who need it and his party is meant to be to the right of labour.
|
|