Starmer's vision quest

[TailWindHome]

 

[briantrumpet]

View attachment 15197

I guess they are forgetting he's lost two previous leadership elections.

 

[Ian H]

Anyway, he'll either pull his rabbit out of the hat, or just pull its ears off. The book is running.

 

[Rusty Nails]

It's definitely not an easy thing to resolve, but will need leadership, not simply accepting the status quo with a shrug of the shoulders.

There are many different elements to leadership. Timing is one of them.

 

[Pblakeney]

I think that so long as the majority of people are doing "tolerably well" financially, then, no problem, but, when the majority begin to feel (rightly or wrongly) that they are no longer doing "tolerably well", there come a need to find a reason. The natural human state is not to blame your own short comings, so, the population at large do not think (for example), "well, my productive is crap, so, therefore the Germans/Chinese/ etc etc are doing better than me". The "natural" thing to do is to find some group the blame. So, foreigners (particularly readily identifiable foreigners), or, people of a different religion (again, useful if easily identified. Then, all you need is a cheer leader to channel the dissatisfaction.

Is that not just a polite way of saying that the majority of people are easily manipulated?

 

[icowden]

I never said he owned it. I guess his Green/environmental epiphany is more recent. Which was kind of my point.

Oh OK. People can never learn or change what they think. Right.

 

[BoldonLad]

Is that not just a polite way of saying that the majority of people are easily manipulated?

More a polite way of saying the majority of people are selfish, but, don’t want to admit it.

 

[briantrumpet]

More a polite way of saying the majority of people are selfish, but, don’t want to admit it.

I'm always a bit frustrated at Budget time when the headlines are so often focused on what immediate difference it'll make in £sd to individuals via tax changes, as if that's the most important thing the Chancellor should be focused on. In between elections people make all sorts of nice noises about being happy to pay more tax for this or that, then when it comes to an election, all the noise is about who will promise the biggest tax giveaways, no matter what they'll do to the fabric of society or the wellbeing of the country.

 

[Stevo 666]

I can see you have no answers.

I asked the question to Bob. Good try.

 

[BoldonLad]

I'm always a bit frustrated at Budget time when the headlines are so often focused on what immediate difference it'll make in £sd to individuals via tax changes, as if that's the most important thing the Chancellor should be focused on. In between elections people make all sorts of nice noises about being happy to pay more tax for this or that, then when it comes to an election, all the noise is about who will promise the biggest tax giveaways, no matter what they'll do to the fabric of society or the wellbeing of the country.

As has been said more than once on here, “other people paying more tax is good, me paying more tax, not so good”.

Paying tax is rather like going to Church, it may make you look good, but, best avoided, if you can get away with it.

 

[Stevo 666]

Troll. Once again you've refused to provide any backing for your increasingly stupid claims.

If you aren't going to answer my questions regarding Thames Water, perhaps you can justify this imbecilic statement.

Aw Bob, you don't want to play. I ask a simple question about the what you see as the benefits of nationalising certain sectors of the economy and you cant answer so you get all arsey. May look up how to debate like a grown up and try again next time?

 

[Stevo 666]

@bobzmyunkle didn't deflect. He asked you a clear and specific question which provides the answer to your question.



You are the one deflecting by refusing to acknowledge or counter the argument. Presumably because there is no real justification for allowing foreign companies to extract all the value in our water utilities leaving only debt for the Government.

So stop ducking the question. Why do you think they should stay private and why do you think you, and the country, would be better off with a Reform government led by a shyster willing to take vast sums of money to lobby for the cause of the super rich?

Let Bob answer my question if he can, although I think hes already taken his ball home.

 

[Stevo 666]

I'm content with you being worse off
We'll see how it goes for the country

I'd gently point out how happy you were with the Truss budget, so your judgement may be off.

You wont be content then, as I'm not worse off but no thanks to the current admnistration.

People can have different views on budgets depending on whether they are looking at the impact on them personally or on the country as a whole. Truss' budget didn't do the country a lot of good but it would have saved me a good chunk of money. Whereas Labour budgets don't tend to benefit either.

 

[Stevo 666]

And here's the question I asked that got Bobz so angry. Still waiting for an answer...

Surely you can't argue with this one @Stevo 666?
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...nergy-water-under-public-control-keir-starmer

Maybe you explain to me why you think its a good idea/what the benefits are. Some cost estimates might be useful to include.

 

[briantrumpet]

As has been said more than once on here, “other people paying more tax is good, me paying more tax, not so good”.

Paying tax is rather like going to Church, it may make you look good, but, best avoided, if you can get away with it.

Au contraire, being willing to pay one's fair share of tax is a sign of a civilised population, though most people will claim that their share should be lower. Even Plato had something to say about it: “When there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income.”