What is the point of labour ?

[doulikefish]

It's utterly tremendous and depressing at the same time to see labour tied up in knots around ulez .To the general public it now looks like a labour policy and the Tories are going to reject it .They really are useless 

[Leith Green]

41 minutes ago, doulikefish said:

It's utterly tremendous and depressing at the same time to see labour tied up in knots around ulez .To the general public it now looks like a labour policy and the Tories are going to reject it .They really are useless 

Its even more inept when you consider that one of the reasons people in Uxbridge were going radge about this was the lack of adequate scrappage compensation for older cars.

The UK Government funds this for other cities (£50m for Bradford, for example), but not in London "for some reason".

The fact that the PR people for Starmer and Khan couldnt get a cogent story together over this is fucking laughable.

[coprolite]

19 hours ago, Donathan said:

Let's dissect each of their five key missions

 

Sunak

1. Halve inflation - On the face of it, a good thing to have as a priority. The cost of living crisis is hitting us all and anything to stop prices spiralling out of control is a good thing. He's being outperformed by both the US and the EU on this but I largely blame a mix of Brexit and lockdowns for massively reducing our productivity without a matching reduction in wages. Tentative signs of improvement this week.

2. Grow the economy - No sign of this so far.

3. Reduce national debt - I understand the purpose here to not run up a huge debt and spook the markets like Truss did, but not really working with gilt rates still sky high.

4. NHS waiting lists - This is an absolutely key policy for me and one I'm glad to see the PM taking on. No progress so far though, they're at record levels.

5. Stop the small boats - I don't care about this.

 

Starmer

1. Highest sustained growth in the G7 - A lot more ambitious than Sunak just saying "grow the economy"

2. Make Britain a clean energy superpower - IMO the environment is a top 3 issue so it's encouraging to see Starmer putting this amongst his key pledges whereas Sunak ignored it

3. Build an NHS fit for the future - Far more impressive than Sunak just going for a short term reduction in waiting lists

4. Make Britain's streets safe - Nothing at all on street safety from Sunak.

5. Break down barriers to opportunity at every stage - Great for those of us that would like to see equal opportunities.

 

The only criticism of Starmer for me is that there's nothing on inflation and the cost of living. But I'd much rather have a PM focused on the environment, equal opportunities and making our streets safer than one that's just banging on about small boats and the national debt.

 

Inflation has been mainly caused by oil and food shocks. The persistence of these rises is strongly arguably more due to increased profits than to wages not reducing.

Profits have increases by mire than wages and there is no evidence anywhere of a wage - price spiral. 

"getting inflation under control" for these c***s means further cuts to real wages by framing pay rises as inflationary. 

I don't see this as a "good thing" but it's subjective.

You obviously like people kept in their place for the benefit of capital and if that's where you're coming from, it's great. 

Also, on the national debt, gilt rates are below inflation, so can't be responsible for increasing debt. The main reason the national debt remains high is because of slow growth. It should also be reduced by inflation. 

 

I'm unconvinced that those are any more than slogans from Starmer. Agree that as a statement of intent, they sound better than Sunak's agenda. That's a low bar though. 

13 hours ago, Donathan said:

Do you understand what austerity actually means?

 

Real terms public spending has increased under Cameron’s three immediate successors. 

Do you? 

Insufficient +1 can still be insufficient. Pu

It's arguable that austerity proper ended at covid, but not before. 

We've increased public spending on health only since the Tories came in (and on Brexit). 

(real terms) 

[Guest]

 

[Salt n Vinegar]

35 minutes ago, FreedomFarter said:

 

Pedant's corner, but should the second headline not end with "... for Uxbridge defeat."? The way it's written it looks as if the ulez expansion was caused by the election result, rather than claiming the opposite.

[dirty dingus]

I've just read a bit about ULEZ there and it seems most petrol cars registered after 2006 and diesels after 2015 have low enough emissions to avoid a charge. Who is up in arms in Uxbridge about it and how many folk do they think it will impact on? I don't drive so I don't really know the ins and outs of this but the charges of £12.50 a day ULEZ plus £15 congestion charges and the general traffic and parking costs around London would have me running for public transport rather than drive daily.

[doulikefish]

5 minutes ago, dirty dingus said:

Who is up in arms in Uxbridge about it and how many folk do they think it will impact on? 

Gammons that it doesn't actually affect but the press have them whipped up to believe it does 

[Granny Danger]

6 minutes ago, doulikefish said:

Gammons that it doesn't actually affect but the press have them whipped up to believe it does 

It’s important that people have something to keep the constantly upset.  They should start supporting Dundee United and forget about ULEZ.

[Donathan]

26 minutes ago, dirty dingus said:

I've just read a bit about ULEZ there and it seems most petrol cars registered after 2006 and diesels after 2015 have low enough emissions to avoid a charge. Who is up in arms in Uxbridge about it and how many folk do they think it will impact on? I don't drive so I don't really know the ins and outs of this but the charges of £12.50 a day ULEZ plus £15 congestion charges and the general traffic and parking costs around London would have me running for public transport rather than drive daily.

It’s entirely a Tory dog whistle. The purpose of ULEZ isn’t really to use motorists as a cash cow but to encourage people to either opt for walking, cycling and public transport as an alternative to driving at all, or if they do absolutely need to drive then they should be encouraged to opt for more environmentally friendly cars.

 

Outer London areas such as Uxbridge, Hendon, Barnet, Dagenham and Croydon have comparatively fewer people commuting into the city compared to your Claphams and your Camdens so that naturally means more need for cars, to me that suggests that the ULEZ expansion is an appropriate policy for climate reasons (IMO, all cars that don’t meet the ULEZ criteria should be taxed at £12.50 per day if not banned outright) 

 

Having said that, it’s a democracy and parties that take decisions that aren’t popular will rightly be punished at the ballot box, so I understand why Keir Starmer is putting pressure on Khan here. 

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Donathan said:

Having said that, it’s a democracy and parties that take decisions that aren’t popular will rightly be punished at the ballot box, so I understand why Keir Starmer is putting pressure on Khan here. 

Public opinion is very malleable.  Hardly any of the folk who went on to vote for Brexit gave a toss about the EU until Farage convinced them it was a priority. You get the opposite too where a majority public opinion is ignored by all politicians because they don't want it acted upon, a UK example is capital punishment. Starmer should've been making the case for cleaner air in London, shaping public opinion on it.

[Billy Jean King]

23 hours ago, RuMoore said:

Presumably the solution is to offer  nothing productive at all and label everything under the sun as Tory. 

It's really intellectual stuff.  

It's not up to the electorate to be "productive" whatever that actuallymeansin this context. The public can only vote for the options on the ballot paper. It's the whole system that's fucked.

[welshbairn]

2 hours ago, dirty dingus said:

I've just read a bit about ULEZ there and it seems most petrol cars registered after 2006 and diesels after 2015 have low enough emissions to avoid a charge. Who is up in arms in Uxbridge about it and how many folk do they think it will impact on? I don't drive so I don't really know the ins and outs of this but the charges of £12.50 a day ULEZ plus £15 congestion charges and the general traffic and parking costs around London would have me running for public transport rather than drive daily.

It seems to be mainly van and black cab drivers, they've had enough warning to sort themselves out though. Starmer talking about rethinking it is madness though, they won't know whether to switch vehicles or not and people who have already invested in an upgrade will go mental.

Edited July 23, 2023 by welshbairn

[Salt n Vinegar]

It's so hard to keep up. Is Starmer now against improving air quality in London? Is that now some kind of "woke nonsense" that the Tories have convinced him to bin?

[Lurkst]

On 22/07/2023 at 11:39, Salt n Vinegar said:

Interesting comment on Breaking the News on Radio Scotland.  On of the participants claims that Keir Starmer is the human equivalent of that piece of soggy cloth you find under mince.  What's it really for?

Great line, Mark Nelson delivered it.

 

[oneteaminglasgow]

3 hours ago, FreedomFarter said:

Public opinion is very malleable.  Hardly any of the folk who went on to vote for Brexit gave a toss about the EU until Farage convinced them it was a priority. You get the opposite too where a majority public opinion is ignored by all politicians because they don't want it acted upon, a UK example is capital punishment. Starmer should've been making the case for cleaner air in London, shaping public opinion on it.

The problem is that the public, by and large, don’t engage with policy details, they engage with presentation, and that presentation is controlled by a handful of people, almost all of whom are c***s.

Low Emission Zones are a good thing, and there should be more of them. If you sat down and explained what they actually do and what they’re for, I can’t imagine many normal people being against them. But they’ve been fed a narrative that they’re bad, and rather than try to tackle that, Starmer has (once again) capitulated to it. 

[Granny Danger]

6 hours ago, FreedomFarter said:

Public opinion is very malleable.  Hardly any of the folk who went on to vote for Brexit gave a toss about the EU until Farage convinced them it was a priority. You get the opposite too where a majority public opinion is ignored by all politicians because they don't want it acted upon, a UK example is capital punishment. Starmer should've been making the case for cleaner air in London, shaping public opinion on it.

It’s a while to the next GE, plenty of time for Starmer to advocate for capital punishment.

[KirkieRR]

Labour are now officially against climate change, but opposed to stuff that combats it if it affects Labour votes.

No doubt Donathan will be along to insist that, no, Labour means nothing that it says, including this, but once they've won the election they'll fess up and say they lied and lead us into a glorious green social democratic future and ditch all the Tory-pleasing stuff.

[Donathan]

Even on the uniform swing implied by the Uxbridge result, Labour would gain over 100 seats and be the largest party (20 seats short of an outright win). Given the ULEZ effect clearly impacted the result here, it doesn’t take a genius to suggest that the actual national swing to Labour will be more than this result and Starmer will get his majority. 
 

 

Sunak’s only chance IMO is to run it right down to the end of 2024 or even January 2025 and hope that the cost of living crisis is in a much better state and NHS waiting lists are down.

 

Even at that I think the UK is fed up with the Tories and ready to give the other guy a chance much in the same way that the 2010 election result was largely seen as the country being ready to move on from new Labour more so than loving David Cameron. 

[dirty dingus]

10 minutes ago, Donathan said:

Even on the uniform swing implied by the Uxbridge result, Labour would gain over 100 seats and be the largest party (20 seats short of an outright win). Given the ULEZ effect clearly impacted the result here, it doesn’t take a genius to suggest that the actual national swing to Labour will be more than this result and Starmer will get his majority. 
 

 

Sunak’s only chance IMO is to run it right down to the end of 2024 or even January 2025 and hope that the cost of living crisis is in a much better state and NHS waiting lists are down.

 

Even at that I think the UK is fed up with the Tories and ready to give the other guy a chance much in the same way that the 2010 election result was largely seen as the country being ready to move on from new Labour more so than loving David Cameron. 

It will be down to whether the tories at Auntie Beeb and the print media are ready to accept Starmers b*****dised version of Labour or stick to their Bozo backstabbing fascist front bench mates. I'm sure they will be holding a few bacon roll photos just in case they don't like the cut of his jib.

[StellarHibee]

Starmer has already openly committed to maintaining the anti-protest bill and the power to overrule court verdicts. Putting everything else to the side, those things alone should see him nowhere near office. The fact millions of people are wetting themselves at the prospects of "getting the tories out", only to then be replaced with this guy, shows just how easily led the general public are. They are Turkeys ecstatically chirping away on their way to the slaughter house.