? I don't see a contradiction? I said she ruled out raising the top rate of income tax specifically as that's what was in Starmer's pledges and what polls positively. The top rate of income tax is included in the phrase "the rates of income tax" no?
angela raynor calling tories scum
- Thread starter brattleboro
- Start date
? I don't see a contradiction? I said she ruled out raising the top rate of income tax specifically as that's what was in Starmer's pledges and what polls positively. The top rate of income tax is included in the phrase "the rates of income tax" no?
Ex pfc wintergreen
Well-known member
Not saying you were wrong,I was just endorsing Norfolk's statement because I was reading the interview as he posted, even though he implied on another thread I was racist I bear him no malice for his ignorance.
Lefty
Well-known member
Believe it or not, policies aren't as important these days as what people believe you generally stand for and against. This is shown regularly when Labour or Tory voters are asked about manifesto's at election time and regularly agree with the oppositions manifesto if they are deceived into believing it is their own parties.
Labour need to address that.
Policies are useful indicators and the 2017 manifesto was an exercise in compromise within the party and restraint on behalf of the Corbynites, so people saw the Party was not going as extreme as feared.
But 2017-2019 saw Labour confusing the public on Brexit because it's leader, amazingly, had no interest in Brexit and couldn't be bothered to take a position, the members and voters wanted a confirmatory referendum, but Corbyn's tiny influential inner circle wanted full on Brexit because they somehow thought they would get a Left wing Brexit even though the Tories were in power and setting the agenda. That inner circle took it upon themselves, with their proximity to Corbyn and influence and authority derived from that, to take advantage of the vacuum
What we ended up standing for, in the minds of the public, was excusing russian poisonings on our soil, bullying and tolerance of Weinsteinlike inappropriate advances towards female staffers and of course anti-semitism.
Starmers 'principles' are good, we just need to push that narrative rather than pick it apart on the details and undermine it from within. We need to look electable, not do a better job for the Tories than they can manage themselves.
A couple of flagship policies to illustrate a broader direction is all that is required.
Labour need to address that.
Policies are useful indicators and the 2017 manifesto was an exercise in compromise within the party and restraint on behalf of the Corbynites, so people saw the Party was not going as extreme as feared.
But 2017-2019 saw Labour confusing the public on Brexit because it's leader, amazingly, had no interest in Brexit and couldn't be bothered to take a position, the members and voters wanted a confirmatory referendum, but Corbyn's tiny influential inner circle wanted full on Brexit because they somehow thought they would get a Left wing Brexit even though the Tories were in power and setting the agenda. That inner circle took it upon themselves, with their proximity to Corbyn and influence and authority derived from that, to take advantage of the vacuum
What we ended up standing for, in the minds of the public, was excusing russian poisonings on our soil, bullying and tolerance of Weinsteinlike inappropriate advances towards female staffers and of course anti-semitism.
Starmers 'principles' are good, we just need to push that narrative rather than pick it apart on the details and undermine it from within. We need to look electable, not do a better job for the Tories than they can manage themselves.
A couple of flagship policies to illustrate a broader direction is all that is required.
Ex pfc wintergreen
Well-known member
And then there was Corbyns baggage.....
Scrapping tax relief for public schools by relieving them of their charitable status is a start. Scrapping tax relief for private equity bosses too as well as examining every single tax relief scheme to see if it brings value for money in the way of creating jobs or benefitting communities, which currently costs £170 bn a year
Investing £28bn a year in green energy and industries such as building giga factories to produce batteries for our electric cars, bulding more cycle lanes and planting more trees. Creating more green spaces. Investing in hydrogen technology. Building flood defences. Keeping homes warm. All this will bring in good, well paid jobs.
Getting rid of business rates.
Reducing the taper on Universal Credit so that claimants keep more of their money.
Introduce a National Minimum Wage of £10 per hour.
DanJC
Active member
I totally agree.
Laughing
Well-known member
A different issue Stu
Lefty
Well-known member
At least that is a good response.
Lefty
Well-known member
On energy nationalisation or indeed any nationalisation, the answer should be 'not if the private sector is best able to provide the service the public are entitled to, but when it fails, we will step in'. Adding that the government want to work in partnership where it can is sensible. The foremost ideology of the Labour Party should be doing what works, to achieve certain goals, not doing something just to conform with an ideology.
What that shifts the debate on to is whether the private sector is doing a good job. It is clear that the railways have failed. It is clear the NHS is better than the private sector when funded properly. It is clear that some things are not suitable to be served by the free market such as the prison service or the police. Some industries are strategically important, such as water supply, so on those either nationalisation or a partnership might be best with sufficient legislative protection built in. With energy, it similarly remains to be seen. Can the government do a better job? Can the private sector? Does it need a joint effort?
What that shifts the debate on to is whether the private sector is doing a good job. It is clear that the railways have failed. It is clear the NHS is better than the private sector when funded properly. It is clear that some things are not suitable to be served by the free market such as the prison service or the police. Some industries are strategically important, such as water supply, so on those either nationalisation or a partnership might be best with sufficient legislative protection built in. With energy, it similarly remains to be seen. Can the government do a better job? Can the private sector? Does it need a joint effort?
Laughing
Well-known member
Intelligent post Lefty!
HarryVegas
Well-known member
Unacceptable phrases:
“Tory scum”
Acceptable phrases:
“Picaninnies with watermelon smiles”
“Tank topped bumboys”
“Muslim women wearing burkas look like letter boxes”
“The French are turds”
Acceptable actions:
Refusing to feed society’s poorest children
Sending vans round, painted with ‘go home’ slogans to target immigrants
Labelling people ‘scroungers’
Laughing and cheering as you block a pay rise for nurses
Giving away billions of pounds of public money for NHS contracts to your rich friends who have zero relevant experience
Unacceptable actions:
Telling the truth
“Tory scum”
Acceptable phrases:
“Picaninnies with watermelon smiles”
“Tank topped bumboys”
“Muslim women wearing burkas look like letter boxes”
“The French are turds”
Acceptable actions:
Refusing to feed society’s poorest children
Sending vans round, painted with ‘go home’ slogans to target immigrants
Labelling people ‘scroungers’
Laughing and cheering as you block a pay rise for nurses
Giving away billions of pounds of public money for NHS contracts to your rich friends who have zero relevant experience
Unacceptable actions:
Telling the truth
BoroinBuxton
Well-known member
Redwurzel
Well-known member
The Labour Party has allowed the Tories to use the phrase "Levelling up", which is criminal. The Labour Party for me should be about creating a more equal society. There should be not the large regional inequalities, class (income/wealth) inequalities, gender inequalities, racial inequalities, disability inequalities etc. Some areas of society have positively more levelled up while others have gone the opposite way.
The message about policies in 2019 failed to get through because many marginal voters specifically in the Red Wall seats did not believe that many of the policies would not get implemented or have low priority, particularly the ones on economic support for economically strugglingly regions. And the movers and drivers in the Labour Party would not follow through on the 2016 Referendum result.
The message about policies in 2019 failed to get through because many marginal voters specifically in the Red Wall seats did not believe that many of the policies would not get implemented or have low priority, particularly the ones on economic support for economically strugglingly regions. And the movers and drivers in the Labour Party would not follow through on the 2016 Referendum result.
Tbh I think it was more basic than that. They just didn't like Corbyn and Abbott.
I do agree that they didnt want to see a return to 70s policies as well though
Lefty
Well-known member
In 2017 people were annoyed at Theresa May's u-turn taking them for granted, Remainers lent Labour their votes and Corbyn & his cadre were given a chance as they hadn't proved themselves to be the inept bunch of catastrophic ideologues they would show themselves to be in the next two years.
Nosmo-King
Well-known member
YouGov polls show the absolute stupidity of her rant. She ain’t all that if she thought it was clever in any way shape or form. Labour simply can’t stop shooting themselves in the foot. Very sad