Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Observer II

New Labour Leader -

Recommended Posts

So Labour has elected Starmer as their new Leader, the same guy who arguably lost them the election with his pro-Remain stance.   :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least they haven't elected left wing Becky. There is at least a chance of moderation with Starmer although of the 3 i think i would have preferred Nandy. Btw i am a floating voter if that is relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironically,  Starmer will probably move them to the right, when the public mood will be moving to the left, as a result of the collective experience of the Covid 19 crisis.   The issue of "a fair society", in which those essential to it are valued above those that currently monopolies wealth on the basis of market forces; will feature as the main political debate.    Mind you, folk can be fickle;  so the clapping for NHS workers may be just a momentary fad, and life will return to the previous norm; where obscene levels of payment goes to footballers, pop and film stars, fashion models and other so-called celebs;  who are non essential to a civilised society, that will face such challenges again in the future.      😷

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Left wing Labour doesn't work for most Labour supporters. The metropolitan elite may be happy to spout heroic left wing tripe & be down with the kidz but they really are content with their lot in life. Property ownership ,whether to live in or rent out, is more their goal with well paid jobs & several holidays a year & his & hers cars. Middle of the road is what they crave & the Labour needs the guts to shed its neanderthal left wingers who have very little relevance to 21st century society. The flag wavers of the hammer & sickle are like the militant of old who want to create an idea that appeals to the down trodden ,alas the people who have the nouse & want to better themselves are no longer the down trodden.

As in the words of the Red Flag, "I've got the foreman's job at last so stick the red flag in your pipe & smoke it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think your confusing the "metropolitan elite" with socialists Dave:  old Labour Socialists were elected in 1945 on a really left wing manifesto;  which promised, and delivered the NHS, social housing etc - basics. A generation returned from a war with a clear intent to vote for a land fit for heroes, not return to the old ways of doing things.   These modern pretenders are just woke snowflakes, with PC notions of identity politics that don't address  fundementals.   We've all had a practical lesson with this pandemic as to who and what are really important in our society, it's now for those who've realised this to act accordingly in future, and if Labour aren't prepared to do it, perhaps Nigel's lot will..      😷

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obs, there is a danger in your thought process. The ranking you associate with roles is context specific and your current idealistic view is only wholly correct if we are engaged in a constant war against a virus or some other evil. Indeed at the heart of socialist thinking is that there is a permanent war of sorts. Beyond that kind of permanent war the worth of roles are not the same. If we always rewarded people on the basis of what might be happening in the future what you end up with is communism, that is not what most folk ever wanted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We depend on essential workers at all times;  it merely dawns on us in a crisis.   Give people a list of professions and ask them who is worth more to them;   I really can't imagine footballers etc even being considered; but alas in our current society they can earn more in a week than most earn in a year - can't be right can it?     😷

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really understand your point Obs. In our society people get paid on the basis of what other people are willing to pay them, not on the basis of what people think they are worth or on the basis of what "society" thinks they should be worth. In my job, before I retired, I was in command of a ship worth £many millions carrying cargoes worth £many millions, responsible for the safety and well-being of at least 8 other crew members and also for ensuring that the environment wasn't endangered by the valuable but potentially polluting cargo my ship was carrying. I was expected to carry out navigational and watchkeeping duties at least 8 hours a day for 7 days a week on top of my other duties as shipmaster, and to safely and competently pilot the vessel to and from port facilites. So, in your opinion, how much do you think I should have been paid for doing this job? And possibly, more importantly, if you think I should have been paid what I think I should have been, how long do you think the company I worked for would have lasted given that we live in the real world and not some socialist fantasy world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need to dictate wage rates - just tax them.   I would think the Master of a Vessel is quite important for our economy,  much more important than kicking a ball round a field for 90 minutes.     :rolleyes:         This event is bigger than the 2008 crash, and someone will have to pay for it,  the logical solution is for those with the broadest backs carry the heaviest load.    😷

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So footballers don't pay taxes? Wow, I didn't realise they were getting away with that, I thought it was only BBC "stars" that managed to get that scam to work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now who said they don't -  bit of desperate sarcasm creeping in there Asp     :rolleyes:         You may remember the 2008 crash, when George Osborne told us "we were all in it together" then went on to ravage our public services and it's workforce , as well as the poorest in our society with ten years of austerity.   Not one of the casino bankers or stock exchange gamblers was ever held to account.  Now I doubt the people will be inclined to accept that scenario again.    😷

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Obs your comment about austerity is and always has been politically motivated and misleading. Gordon Brown deliberately went on a spending spree on public sector wages and in particular on Local Government spending. Subsequently the Osbourne plan was to get the fraction of GDP spent on those back to where they were before the spending splurge, ( Which was cynically deliberate to make the Tories have to make cuts and get the publicity they did.) During that period the spending on certain things was cut less than others and the getting back to normal levels took longer than hopes so the restrictions on spending growth had to go on longer than planned. All of this is well known but ignored by the left who have very selective memories. If I remember correctly when they realised they were on the way out Labour increased local Government Spending by almost 30% so they could whinge as the Tories had to cut it. It was an electoral return strategy that put party ahead of country. The cuts to WBC have amounted to 25% in real terms, source Lynton Green, and the amounts of money they claim to have cut are now greater than the amount of money they had in the first place. I recommend a more discerning outlook and checking the facts for yourself.

What I find interesting about the way austerity is told is the way it was to be done for Local Government. The plan was made clear that the Tories were fed up of the constant bad press about reducing Rate Support Grant. The plan for every authority was simple, to allow increases in council tax subject to a limit general set at CPI, increase business rates at CPI and expect savings. The Rate support Grant was cut at the same percentage for each authority and where new burdens were given like Public Health functions they paid extra as a ringfenced grant (e.g the Public Health Grant). The is a system of redistribution via the Rate Support Grant where well off Councils (who receive more business rate income than their less prosperous counterparts elsewhere are levied from the business rates retained and that money is given as extra through rate Support Grant to the poorer councils. That is the levy that WBC have been vocally complaining about for years, yes you will realise that means that WBC have actually been moaning about the operation of a form of socialism by the Tory government. The purpose of this overall plan was to get Local Authorities to be able to not rely on General Taxation at all but be paid for only by Locally Collected Business Rates and Council Tax as well as local charges. So the plan was to give Council's control over their tax base and spending and take Central Government out of the loop of setting Council Tax but setting business rates nationally but allowing local top up taxes on business. The Councils have never acknowledged this was what they want because they will no longer be able to blame everything on Central Government but will have to take on the full responsibility they had in the past. The tragedy is that this was finally supposed to happen next year but I suppose it will muddle one for years to come.

All you hear about is cuts and not a plan to re-empower Local Government to do what there residents want by way of services and remove central control. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I don't disagree with most of your missive,  and I recall the incident of the note being left at the Treasury by the Labour Minister, that we we're broke. My point wasn't about the issue of balancing the books and trying for debt reduction, it was about who paid for it.  Certainly not those responsible for the crash, the banks got baled out by the Plebs, in wage freezes, benefit reductions or taxation.     😷

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you conveniently forget Obs is that high paid taxpayers pay a lot higher percentage of their income in direct taxes (as well as, logically, paying a lot more in the way of indirect taxes e.g. higher Council Tax on their mansions, more in the way of VAT on their luxury goods) than the poorly paid who, as well as earning less, pay less in taxes. I appreciate that the poorly paid do pay too much of their wage in taxes but you can blame Brown for not raising the tax allowance threshold for years. The Tories have been doing this but have not yet reached the level where what is thought to be a living wage is tax free. So you could introduce a limit on how much anyone can be paid, but that would reduce the amount of tax paid too.

The banks have paid back most of the bailout funds already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just on the Banks, I recall you arguing that they shouldn't be bailed out at the time ?    😉     Of course they pay higher taxes, and so they should, perhaps not high enough though, although I do accept there is a law of diminishing returns.  But we've been brainwashed with the Reganomic theory of "trickle down", that argues that the rich spend their money thus creating demand in the economy. However if more people had adequate income, more spending would occur, thus a lot more demand in the economy.. after all the rich can only eat one meal at a time or drive one car at a time !     There will be a lot of thinking to be done after this crisis is over and food for a political debate.    😷

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think they shouldn't have been bailed out (you bale out a boat) but I'm no financial guru.

You don't like Reganomics (there's no such thing BTW), perhaps you prefer the Venezuela model where everybody is equally starving (except the ruling class of course)? Corbyn and McDonnell are big fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asp, as I recall the bailout was inevitable and rapid because RBS was within 24 hours of being insolvent and in law it would have had to freeze the accounts of millions of members of the public on a Saturday morning. It was feared that would leave millions with no cash or access to food and cause mass panic. As I understood it at the time there was no principle driving the decision just outright fear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said Con, I'm no financial guru but that was my feeling at the time. If I was wrong then it's probably lucky that I have no power to direct the banking sector, and nothing I said at the time had any influence on the outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll let you into a secret Obs, in the 1960's I was a leader in the AEU ( Amalgamated Engineering Union) and rubbed shoulders with the elite of the Labor Party, they were so dumb and void of ideas and with more allegiance to Moscow than Westminster, it was pathetic.  I walked away from them, started my own business, employed Conservative principles and built a successful life.

There is nothing good about Labor, their ideas are  restrictive, they don't build they destroy and have no plan other than to spend successful people's money.  Believe me, not one of them lives the idiotic spartan life the that they promote for Joe public.  Conservatives, despite your accusations, give more to charity and support more safety net regulation than any labor section            

The Labor party and its policies have been a disaster since the end of the industrial revolution.  It is said that anyone that hasn't realized this by the time they are thirty is seriously delusional.   Outlaw taxation and a conservative would survive, labor supporters would wither on the vine.

Having said all that, how're ya'll doin', great I hope.

 

 

                  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said Stallard. As my dad always told me, the Labour party is the enemy of the working man. They want the working man to imagine that he is oppressed and to need Labour to protect him. Nothing could be further from the truth. If the hated Tories only represent the top 10% and Labour represent the rest, why haven't the majority voted theTories out of existence  decades ago? The Tories are always accused of wanting to get rid of the sainted NHS and yet have been in government for all but 30 years of the NHS's 72 years existence. Not doing a very good job of that are they? The truth is that the Labour party prefer to be in opposition, not having to make sensible decisions that take the country forward, but rather carping from the sidelines, criticising the government without having any rational policies themselves (a Corbyn speciality). When they do get into government they invariably end up selling the family silver to try and appease their unappeasable supporters. The worry is that as time goes by the present day Tories are drifting towards that sort of behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

😄    The American dream Tex;   like heaven, was invented so the poor would tolerate their poverty on earth  -  20% in the richest Nation on Earth.    😉   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just checking.   I posted a fairly long response an hour ago and it's not here now.  Hope not, but was I censored?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...