Prime minister’s debate

Think Boris won,God help us with these 2

 

Such a pity she lied to him about being a Labour Party member, given that she'd been suspended, and subsequently expelled.

Another Corbyn supported tainted by the antisemitism that he allowed to flourish in his Labour Party.

 

It was a terrible look for him tonight. Mansplaining won't go down well and he was actively denying Truss the opportunity to shoot herself in the foot, as she inevitably does when she speaks.

I notice she continued to maintain the attack line on Roundhay School yet again, trying to sound like she grew up in some deprived area of Leeds.

 

It’s the first one I’ve half watched, partly because my missus fell asleep on my arm and I couldn’t reach the remote!

In about 6 weeks, one of those ‘talents’ is going to be Prime Minister . *shudders at the thought*

 

Whichever of these two become PM I will shed a few tears although they certainly won't be tears of joy.
Sunak is so remote from the everyday life of 99% of the general public that he is nowhere near capable of solving the nation's problems. He only understands balance sheets and ledgers.
As for Truss... Well she is just...err....Truss

 

Truss is the mouthpiece for the ERG just like Johnson was. As stated by Brexit hard man Steve Baker. His quote "Truss will do as she is told".
The ERG is the raving loony's of the Tory party just think the likes of Rees Mogg, Andrew Bridgen, Mark Francois, Nadine Dorris, Bill Cash, Ian Duncan Doughnuts, and of course Brexit hardman Steve Baker, just think about it this gang of Racists will be more or less running the country for the next couple of years, this country is well and truly F*****.

 

Isn't this an example of factional weaponising of antisemitism rather than responding to the criticism of him dropping the fundamentals of his leadership campaign?

 

Anti Semitism is anti Semitism, so far as I can see.

 

Given how vapid this whole leadership campaign has been I'm surprised some (half)wit did not suggest using a puerile campaign slogan, picking up on the integrity angle, along the lines of 'Trust Truss'!

UK politics continues to sink to new lows on a daily basis.

Just read about the head of Defence Procurement and other execs. being given large bonuses in spite of a catalogue of costly failures running over several years and costing taxpayers hundreds of millions. The argument of "having to pay the going rate to attract the best talent" just does not wash.
Whilst I have no issue with genuine Entrepreneurs and risk takers starting out with their own money reaping rewards for hard work and making intelligent decisions (provided that does not involve exploiting others) , Public sector management who squander tax payers hard earned cash and are clearly not up to the job and with no personal risk should not be rewarded for failure. Too many high earners on the gravy train.

EDIT: Used the wrong word there! 'Earning' implies they have worked effectively to justify their fat pay packets and bonuses.

 

The reality is that the private sector has some absolute chancers in it who are being paid way above their intellect and skill and executive pay has powered ahead at a ridiculous rate while other rates of pay have stagnated.

There are good people in both sectors, there are lazy and clueless people in both sectors. What does need bringing to heel is where value is truly derived and how it is fairly rewarded when it is actually earned and not just down to chance or external factors.

As for the politics, we're increasingly going down the american rabbit hole to a place where lies and personal attacks are the norm. Where truth and conviction evaporate. Where disaster is explained away or misrepresented as success.

It is truly grim.

 

Double post

 

It beats me why at a time when literally a pink fluffy stuffed pig would do a better job than the idiots in government, some people take great pleasure in attacking the opposition. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a great fan of Starmer but he would be infinitely better than this shower of sheite.

 

Maybe marginally. Unfortunately he lacks any socialist values.

 

Absolutely agree, as does the Forde report. But, returning to the point I don't think it's helpful timing to be shying away from nationalisation of utilities and rail. If nothing else surely this is the most popular it's ever been?

I've completely switched off from politics the last couple of years, in part because of working in a political environment everyday, but I find the tenor of debate thoroughly depressing. Personally I was quite supportive of the notion of Starmer and I'm certainly not as critical as others.

But he's going to need something better than a tag line of fighting the next election on economic growth. Its an empty statement thrown about by everyone and does nothing to speak to the people that have been left behind by profit over people.

I read a brilliant interview with Lisa Nandy however who did set a vision based around the economy that was inspiring and talked to people. If Labour hones that argument they might do well in England. They won't win of course because of the SNP and not entertaining electoral reform or exploring electoral pacts with the Greens or Lib Dems.

 

Like I said Ian, I'm no fan. But realistically there is no chance of him being replaced as Labour leader before the next GE, and I don't believe a majority Labour Government would be best for Britain because that would put off any chance of replacing first past the post for at least another 5 years. He'll get my vote if he makes a deal with other opposition parties on a platform of electoral reform.

 

What does that nationalisation entail though? A lot of the utility companies have gone under due to the present price environment and the price cap, but the big players are still there. They would have to be compensated presumably, not least because their shares will be scattered amongst pension funds and insurance companies. It would take a lot of bandwidth and ministerial time to navigate through all of this, with the benefits probably unrealisable in the lifetime of one parliament. Attlee's government nationalised industries in the midst of post-war hardship, when there was arguably more imperative, but it barely survived beyond one term.

It seems to me that Starmer has fixed on economic growth as the essential aim before we can start to work on a fairer, more redistributive society. He set out the wider context of this in his interview on the Campbell/Stewart podcast 'The Rest Is Politics'. It's fair to say he hasn't specified exact figures for personal or corporation tax, or other essential details. But I think he would need to see what havoc Sunak or Truss has been able to wreak in the two years+ left to him/her before honing it further. It's a lonely place in the Starmer fan club!

Just on Scotland, I think he has to rule out deals with Sturgeon in advance of any election. But how about a post-election discussion to agree further devolvement of powers to Scotland (and to other parts of the UK) in return for an acceptance of the current constitutional settlement for a minimum of ten years? On the same tack, I'd be more than happy if he had to negotiate an agreement post-election with the Lib Dems at the cost of conceding a meaningful referendum on PR (not like the self-sabotaging version which Cameron offered). I'd be very happy to see any solution which kept the Tories out of power for the rest of my lifetime.

 

aka Sophie Smirk.

 

I'm not convinced this would be the case, as it's one of the topics that will hopefully get decided upon at conference, where the membership can ultimately steer the policy. Our CLP sent this topic as their chosen one for conference (all CLP's get to choose one and, in theory, this drives which ones get to be debated in open conference).

Unusually, it's also a topic which generally transcends the usual factionalism around most things up for debate within Labour. The Momentum wing of the party certainly favour it, but it's also something I'm strongly supportive of for General Elections, as it gives everyone's vote a more equal footing, regardless of where they live. I voted for PR when we had the referendum on it a few years ago, and would continue to do so.

I'm hopeful that it's something that ultimately becomes Labour policy on the basis that a majority of the membership wants it to be so. Labour winning a majority (or even the prospect of it) at the next election wouldn't make me want to stop this from happening.

 

well because he is absolutely useless.

Yesterday rail was not being nationalised. Today it is.

He lied to get elected so I would assume any promises he makes going forward are also lies.

I don’t vote from hate. I vote for hope. Starmer offers none just more of the same. Reeves is promising austerity on a greater scale than the tories why would I vote for that?

if he committed 100% to pre election pacts, PR and coalition then I’d reluctantly lend him my vote. Otherwise it’s going Green

 

yeah nationalised utilities are working so badly in countries that have them. Remind me who is paying for the French to be protected from the rising costs of energy. That will be us. There is also a security risk in letting foreign counties run vast swathes of our essential services.

Regardless of that Starmer made a 100% commitment to nationalise rail, water, electric and said they would be in his manifesto. See Andrew Neil interview. If he fails to do that then he’s a big a liar as Johnson