|
Post by wannabee on Mar 20, 2024 16:26:18 GMT
Miss Reeves can fuck the fuck off ... I too shudder at the mention of Thatcher's name and the policies she implemented but in my view this is not at all what Reeves has said What she said was comparing to 1979 UK is at an "Inflection Point" and without major change it will be "Managed Decline" I think few would disagree Reeves is in favour of Supply Side Economics which too has echoes of Thatcher or Reganomics or Trickle Down and would indeed be a disaster What Reeves is proposing is Securonomics or "modern supply-side economics", which focuses on infrastructure, education and labour supply while rejecting tax cuts and deregulation. It is very much follows Biden's economic policy, particularly his Inflation Reduction Act which Incentives Businesses in New Technology It involves a productivist active state taking a more active role in managing the free-market economy, boosting production and drawing up industrial policy and stronger supply chains. In many respects it an admission that Globalisation hasn't worked and it is a Policy the Polar Opposite of what the Conservatives are currently pursuing It promotes Fiscal Responsibility on current account spending but that doesn't preclude increasing the Capital Budget for Infrastructure, Wealth Creation and Productivity Reeves can't accurately predict how poor the Public Finances will be if Labour were to win a GE but she has set out a clear path of how she would manage the Treasury I think it's a sensible strategy
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Mar 20, 2024 20:32:48 GMT
Surely you see through this!? It is all bullshit words and no policy. It is politics. They are boxing in the Tories so all they can do is go further to the right and further isolate their traditional voters, whilst the vacuous words of the labour front bench entice traditional tory voters to consider switching sides. The oldest trick in the book! People on the left won’t switch to the tories and under our shoddy electoral system have nowhere else to turn but Labour realistically. Or they don’t vote. But labour is calculating that most will vote for them still because the state of the country needs a labour government more than a tory government and there is no other option. I guarantee the Labour manifesto won’t be a Thatcherite manifesto. If it is, then is the time to be critical, super critical in fact. All of this is political smoke and mirror nonsense that first past the post encourages. 45.7% voted for UKIP/Brexit/Conservative at the last election. Currently 35% are voting for Reform/Labour based on the last poll. That's roughly what the right wing parties took in 1997. Labour are polling at 46% having won 43% of the vote share in 1997. With the formation of Reform who are polling relatively well and the fact the tories will split alot of their vote there. I'm not sure how fishing for more votes in this pool is effective? If anything I think they're just putting more and more of their own traditional base off them. And with the tories polling so poorly I can see more and more people considering voting for an alternative on the left due to that. The greens are contesting every seat? Alot of independants and socialists, more than in recent elections, are looking to stand too. And the workers party also plans to contest a load of seats. Pandering to thatcherites is a very risky move given where the polls currently sit. Taking your traditional base for granted is a big mistake in my opinion which won't be easily forgotten.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Mar 20, 2024 20:45:39 GMT
Surely you see through this!? It is all bullshit words and no policy. It is politics. They are boxing in the Tories so all they can do is go further to the right and further isolate their traditional voters, whilst the vacuous words of the labour front bench entice traditional tory voters to consider switching sides. The oldest trick in the book! People on the left won’t switch to the tories and under our shoddy electoral system have nowhere else to turn but Labour realistically. Or they don’t vote. But labour is calculating that most will vote for them still because the state of the country needs a labour government more than a tory government and there is no other option. I guarantee the Labour manifesto won’t be a Thatcherite manifesto. If it is, then is the time to be critical, super critical in fact. All of this is political smoke and mirror nonsense that first past the post encourages. 45.7% voted for UKIP/Brexit/Conservative at the last election. Currently 35% are voting for Reform/Labour based on the last poll. That's roughly what the right wing parties took in 1997. Labour are polling at 46% having won 43% of the vote share in 1997. With the formation of Reform who are polling relatively well and the fact the tories will split alot of their vote there. I'm not sure how fishing for more votes in this pool is effective? If anything I think they're just putting more and more of their own traditional base off them. And with the tories polling so poorly I can see more and more people considering voting for an alternative on the left due to that. The greens are contesting every seat? Alot of independants and socialists, more than in recent elections, are looking to stand too. And the workers party also plans to contest a load of seats. Pandering to thatcherites is a very risky move given where the polls currently sit. Taking your traditional base for granted is a big mistake in my opinion which won't be easily forgotten. You might be right. I guess time will tell. When it comes to it, with first past the post, will left wingers really waste a vote on an alternative party knowing that doing so is the equivalent to voting for the tories (in tory v labour seats). I think most people vote tactically. Very few vote for who they want as the main driver of who they vote for. In my area it is lib dem v tory so obviously I will vote lib dem, regardless of the manifestos because that is the best chance of stopping the tories. I wouldn’t describe myself as left wing, but if voting green, labour, reform, anything meant stopping the tories, I would give them my vote. I suspect many others across the country feel the same way.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Mar 20, 2024 22:02:46 GMT
Surely you see through this!? It is all bullshit words and no policy. It is politics. They are boxing in the Tories so all they can do is go further to the right and further isolate their traditional voters, whilst the vacuous words of the labour front bench entice traditional tory voters to consider switching sides. The oldest trick in the book! People on the left won’t switch to the tories and under our shoddy electoral system have nowhere else to turn but Labour realistically. Or they don’t vote. But labour is calculating that most will vote for them still because the state of the country needs a labour government more than a tory government and there is no other option. I guarantee the Labour manifesto won’t be a Thatcherite manifesto. If it is, then is the time to be critical, super critical in fact. All of this is political smoke and mirror nonsense that first past the post encourages. 45.7% voted for UKIP/Brexit/Conservative at the last election. Currently 35% are voting for Reform/Labour based on the last poll. That's roughly what the right wing parties took in 1997. Labour are polling at 46% having won 43% of the vote share in 1997. With the formation of Reform who are polling relatively well and the fact the tories will split alot of their vote there. I'm not sure how fishing for more votes in this pool is effective? If anything I think they're just putting more and more of their own traditional base off them. And with the tories polling so poorly I can see more and more people considering voting for an alternative on the left due to that. The greens are contesting every seat? Alot of independants and socialists, more than in recent elections, are looking to stand too. And the workers party also plans to contest a load of seats. Pandering to thatcherites is a very risky move given where the polls currently sit. Taking your traditional base for granted is a big mistake in my opinion which won't be easily forgotten. Labour are not pandering to Thatcherites, as Oggy said the Labour Manifesto will have nothing to do with Thatcherism. Reeves remark was that UK Economy is at a crisis very much like when Thatcher took Office in 1979. People have taken 2 + 2 and arrived at 27 I assume you meant Reform/Conservatives are Polling 35% but it's not additive as Reform will Poll higher in Conservatives Constituencies and their numbers are mainly from disgruntled Conservatives who want more Right Wing Policies. About the same number of 2019 dissatisfied Conservative Voters are former Labour Voters or Traditional Conservative Voters who want to move to the centre. It is primarily these later two groups that Labour want to reassure that Labour will be Fiscally responsible The minor Parties will field Candidates that have little recognition, this will apply to Labour and particularly to Conservatives too with so many sitting MPs not contesting but the recognition will be either a Red or Blue Rossett
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 20, 2024 22:11:30 GMT
Miss Reeves can fuck the fuck off ... I too shudder at the mention of Thatcher's name and the policies she implemented but in my view this is not at all what Reeves has said What she said was comparing to 1979 UK is at an "Inflection Point" and without major change it will be "Managed Decline" I think few would disagree Reeves is in favour of Supply Side Economics which too has echoes of Thatcher or Reganomics or Trickle Down and would indeed be a disaster What Reeves is proposing is Securonomics or "modern supply-side economics", which focuses on infrastructure, education and labour supply while rejecting tax cuts and deregulation. It is very much follows Biden's economic policy, particularly his Inflation Reduction Act which Incentives Businesses in New Technology It involves a productivist active state taking a more active role in managing the free-market economy, boosting production and drawing up industrial policy and stronger supply chains. In many respects it an admission that Globalisation hasn't worked and it is a Policy the Polar Opposite of what the Conservatives are currently pursuing It promotes Fiscal Responsibility on current account spending but that doesn't preclude increasing the Capital Budget for Infrastructure, Wealth Creation and Productivity Reeves can't accurately predict how poor the Public Finances will be if Labour were to win a GE but she has set out a clear path of how she would manage the Treasury I think it's a sensible strategy
Fair comment mate but if that is her plan, why does she even need to evoke the ghost of Thatcher?
Just get on with her own economic philosophies, there isn't any need to attempt to poach a handful of Tory voters in such a vulgar manner.
My ire is directed more at Starmer's arrogant belief that he has got the traditional Labour vote in his back pocket and as such, it doesn't matter if he insults them in his desire to pick up a few Tory votes. (As you know) whole towns and cities in the North were decimated by her brutal policies and those memories, run deep, very deep and for many people this rhetoric (see Lammy today) is pretty offensive, people who he seems to be now taking for granted.
I know a lot of people who aren't going to vote for him this year, who have traditionally voted Labour for all of their lives. No doubt when the election comes, he will win by a landslide but that won't negate the fact, that in building that landslide, he has pissed off an almighty number of people, people who most likely won't return to Labour until he is gone, indeed people he will probably need at the next election, when the vote will inevitably be, much, much tighter.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Mar 20, 2024 22:49:21 GMT
I too shudder at the mention of Thatcher's name and the policies she implemented but in my view this is not at all what Reeves has said What she said was comparing to 1979 UK is at an "Inflection Point" and without major change it will be "Managed Decline" I think few would disagree Reeves is in favour of Supply Side Economics which too has echoes of Thatcher or Reganomics or Trickle Down and would indeed be a disaster What Reeves is proposing is Securonomics or "modern supply-side economics", which focuses on infrastructure, education and labour supply while rejecting tax cuts and deregulation. It is very much follows Biden's economic policy, particularly his Inflation Reduction Act which Incentives Businesses in New Technology It involves a productivist active state taking a more active role in managing the free-market economy, boosting production and drawing up industrial policy and stronger supply chains. In many respects it an admission that Globalisation hasn't worked and it is a Policy the Polar Opposite of what the Conservatives are currently pursuing It promotes Fiscal Responsibility on current account spending but that doesn't preclude increasing the Capital Budget for Infrastructure, Wealth Creation and Productivity Reeves can't accurately predict how poor the Public Finances will be if Labour were to win a GE but she has set out a clear path of how she would manage the Treasury I think it's a sensible strategy
Fair comment mate but if that is her plan, why does she even need to evoke the ghost of Thatcher?
Just get on with her own economic philosophies, there isn't any need to attempt to poach a handful of Tory voters in such a vulgar manner.
My ire is directed more at Starmer's arrogant belief that he has got the traditional Labour vote in his back pocket and as such, it doesn't matter if he insults them in his desire to pick up a few Tory votes. (As you know) whole towns and cities in the North were decimated by her brutal policies and those memories, run deep, very deep and for many people this rhetoric (see Lammy today) is pretty offensive, people who he seems to be now taking for granted.
I know a lot of people who aren't going to vote for him this year, who have traditionally voted Labour for all of their lives. No doubt when the election comes, he will win by a landslide but that won't negate the fact, that in building that landslide, he has pissed off an almighty number of people, people who most likely won't return to Labour until he is gone, indeed people he will probably need at the next election, when the vote will inevitably be, much, much tighter.
And you also make a fair point and Gawa has made similar The Jury's out on what Labour will actually do if they win a GE Reeves background is within Establishment BoE and her Policies are predicated on "Not Spooking the Horses" and getting the Markets and Business on board. I suspect if Labour do win a GE the outcome will be somewhat of a "Curates Egg" and you and I will be equally frustrated in some measure, but I can't conceive it will be worse outcome than under the present shower. That's not to say I think Labour is simply a better option, I think Labour has the capacity to make real difference but until it becomes reality no-one can say for certain. Who could have predicted after 2019 Election when Johnson won an 80 Seat Majority that Labour would be in contention to win a Majority or in Johnson's own words in a different context he "Spaffed it up the Wall" Brexit and Covid intervened
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 20, 2024 23:30:40 GMT
Fair comment mate but if that is her plan, why does she even need to evoke the ghost of Thatcher?
Just get on with her own economic philosophies, there isn't any need to attempt to poach a handful of Tory voters in such a vulgar manner.
My ire is directed more at Starmer's arrogant belief that he has got the traditional Labour vote in his back pocket and as such, it doesn't matter if he insults them in his desire to pick up a few Tory votes. (As you know) whole towns and cities in the North were decimated by her brutal policies and those memories, run deep, very deep and for many people this rhetoric (see Lammy today) is pretty offensive, people who he seems to be now taking for granted.
I know a lot of people who aren't going to vote for him this year, who have traditionally voted Labour for all of their lives. No doubt when the election comes, he will win by a landslide but that won't negate the fact, that in building that landslide, he has pissed off an almighty number of people, people who most likely won't return to Labour until he is gone, indeed people he will probably need at the next election, when the vote will inevitably be, much, much tighter.
And you also make a fair point and Gawa has made similar The Jury's out on what Labour will actually do if they win a GE Reeves background is within Establishment BoE and her Policies are predicated on "Not Spooking the Horses" and getting the Markets and Business on board. I suspect if Labour do win a GE the outcome will be somewhat of a "Curates Egg" and you and I will be equally frustrated in some measure, but I can't conceive it will be worse outcome than under the present shower. That's not to say I think Labour is simply a better option, I think Labour has the capacity to make real difference but until it becomes reality no-one can say for certain. Who could have predicted after 2019 Election when Johnson won an 80 Seat Majority that Labour would be in contention to win a Majority or in Johnson's own words in a different context he "Spaffed it up the Wall" Brexit and Covid intervened Oh indeed, after the 2019 election, seasoned political commentators were (quite justifiably) suggesting that it would take at least 10 years before Labour could even think about overturning an 80 seat majority.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Mar 21, 2024 9:15:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Mar 21, 2024 9:48:03 GMT
I'm not really surprised. Policy differences between Labour/Tories are minimal. A personnel change is on the cards rather than a change of direction which i find very disappointing as you don't often get an opportunity where the current government is an absolute busted flush. Starmer could be far braver but I'm not sure he actually has any underlying vision - he's a technocrat at the end of the day.
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Mar 21, 2024 11:07:40 GMT
Miss Reeves can fuck the fuck off ... Am I only one seeing the big old correction underneath the original tweet, which basically spells out that the original tweet is a load of old bollocks?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 21, 2024 11:19:57 GMT
Miss Reeves can fuck the fuck off ... Am I only one seeing the big old correction underneath the original tweet, which basically spells out that the original tweet is a load of old bollocks?
That has since been added, however I think a 'load of bollocks' is a bit of a stretch, from the Guardian ...
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Mar 21, 2024 12:36:10 GMT
Miss Reeves can fuck the fuck off ... Am I only one seeing the big old correction underneath the original tweet, which basically spells out that the original tweet is a load of old bollocks? I agree. It's just a total coincidence Keir Starmer, David Lammy, Rachel Reeves and others have all directly or indirectly been complimenting Thatcher. Labour supporters need to stop trying to dress Labour up as something else and just accept what they are now supporting. You either have no problem supporting a front bench who adore the visionary Thatcher or you do. But let's not try and pretend they're all saying something different to what they are. The feelings mutual anyway. Thatcher adores New Labour and sees it as her greatest achievement. 2 cheeks of the same arse.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Mar 21, 2024 19:03:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 21, 2024 19:17:40 GMT
Unfortunately , more than ever, we are going to see a lot of fake "posts"/ " information " etc that on a simple level is difficult to verify. Just reinforcing echo chambers, making people feel better ( a bit like the Oatcake). I think think this is one, Ian
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Mar 21, 2024 19:44:48 GMT
Unfortunately , more than ever, we are going to see a lot of fake "posts"/ " information " etc that on a simple level is difficult to verify. Just reinforcing echo chambers, making people feel better ( a bit like the Oatcake). I think think this is one, Ian Clearly, but I'm generally only here for the wind up BJR. It's sport.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Mar 21, 2024 19:45:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Mar 21, 2024 20:03:59 GMT
Miss Reeves can fuck the fuck off ... Am I only one seeing the big old correction underneath the original tweet, which basically spells out that the original tweet is a load of old bollocks? Yes of course it is Thanks for posting full speech hadn't seen it before
A brilliant analysis and explanation of her philosophy to shape the Economy which I had clumsily tried to do in an earlier post
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 21, 2024 20:06:41 GMT
Unfortunately , more than ever, we are going to see a lot of fake "posts"/ " information " etc that on a simple level is difficult to verify. Just reinforcing echo chambers, making people feel better ( a bit like the Oatcake). I think think this is one, Ian Clearly, but I'm generally only here for the wind up BJR. It's sport. I was a bit slow there Ian, I get you!
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Mar 21, 2024 20:17:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by knype on Mar 21, 2024 20:25:23 GMT
Owen Jones sums up current Labour more than anyone else...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2024 20:40:03 GMT
Owen Jones sums up current Labour more than anyone else... In what way? He’s not a member anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 21, 2024 23:10:30 GMT
Owen Jones sums up current Labour more than anyone else...
In what way knype?
|
|
|
Post by RedandWhite90 on Mar 21, 2024 23:42:14 GMT
Am I only one seeing the big old correction underneath the original tweet, which basically spells out that the original tweet is a load of old bollocks? That has since been added, however I think a 'load of bollocks' is a bit of a stretch, from the Guardian ... But do you still think she needs to 'fuck right off' or is it stats for lefties that may be better being fucked off?
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Mar 21, 2024 23:43:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 22, 2024 1:11:03 GMT
That has since been added, however I think a 'load of bollocks' is a bit of a stretch, from the Guardian ... But do you still think she needs to 'fuck right off' or is it stats for lefties that may be better being fucked off?
I don't know what you want me to say other than that that I have.
Do I trust her anymore than Jeremy Hunt?
Nope.
|
|
|
Post by knype on Mar 22, 2024 6:41:49 GMT
Owen Jones sums up current Labour more than anyone else... In what way knype?
Because he is a tool of the highest order
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 22, 2024 8:57:02 GMT
Because he is a tool of the highest order
Ah right, of course, silly me ...
|
|
|
Post by knype on Mar 22, 2024 9:15:24 GMT
Because he is a tool of the highest order Ah right, of course, silly me ...
You obviously like him, each to their own
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 22, 2024 9:35:05 GMT
Ah right, of course, silly me ...
You obviously like him, each to their own
Not particularly, I was just interested in your reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Mar 22, 2024 10:18:23 GMT
You obviously like him, each to their own Not particularly, I was just interested in your reasoning.
Of which as usual, there is none.
|
|