Starmer Abandons Tuition Fees Pledge

[coluka]

They’re shooting THEMSELVES in the foot right now. They are lying to all and sundry and people are going along with it! If you’re happy to do that then fine, go ahead and vote, but if it blows up in your face don’t blame those of us who’ve been calling this out for about two years, during which time he’s slowly dropped pledges and promises one by one.

I’m just not comfortable voting for someone who behaves like this. And if enough people feel similar to me and decide to vote for someone else and Labour lose, then that’s on Labour and Keir Starmer. Not me, not us.

I tried it your way under Corbyn, that went well, yet you want to rinse and repeat?

This country will never accept a left wing government of the type you seem to seek. Carrying on avoiding the reality of the situation and turning your back on the current Labour party is as good as giving your vote to the tories. You would be condemning me and millions of others to another 5 yrs of tory rule, still your political pride will be intact I guess. I remember a famous saying, ‘In general, pride is at the bottom of all great mistakes’, how true that usually is. The bigger picture is more important, get the tories out then by all means, build from there and push your ideology from a position where the party has power, not from the sidelines where it is just bull and bluster.

 

[r00fie1]

Ok Viv, we get you don’t like Starmer. What is your alternative vision? Please don’t say bring back Corbyn, McDonald or his ilk as it will switch off many a potential Labour waiverer and ensure another Tory government. Labour does not need another civil war right now. You may dislike Starmer, but would you seriously want the party to shoot itself in the foot yet again and see in Sunak for another 5 yrs?

I dont agree with Starmer`s "policies".
Personally he may be a really nice bloke.
He is the mouthpiece for authoritarian vested interests.
Offering Tory or Labour is like choosing different colours of deckchair on the Titanic.

I get your point entirely about Tory policies, but we`ve had 13 years and the British people [Not including Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales] have not only returned Tory Governments, but voted [only just] to leave the biggest single trading block in the world and wave flags. The Labour Party have barely raised a whimper against the ruling party, and when they did, they were attacked with more vitriol and lies than any leader in Labour history. Like you, I remember over 50 years +++ of British politics. Its a different beast these days. I dont think I entirely disagree, but putting a cross on the ballot paper for "Labour" [unless I forget my enforced I.D] is not something I couldnt politically agree with at this moment in time.

 

[viv_andersons_nana]

I tried it your way under Corbyn, that went well, yet you want to rinse and repeat?

This country will never accept a left wing government of the type you seem to seek. Carrying on avoiding the reality of the situation and turning your back on the current Labour party is as good as giving your vote to the tories. You would be condemning me and millions of others to another 5 yrs of tory rule, still your political pride will be intact I guess. I remember a famous saying, ‘In general, pride is at the bottom of all great mistakes’, how true that usually is. The bigger picture is more important, get the tories out then by all means, build from there and push your ideology from a position where the party has power, not from the sidelines where it is just bull and bluster.

Who says we should rinse and repeat? The last leader has long gone. And, again, it’s not me bringing up Jeremy Corbyn.

It’s interesting though because I’ve said I’d like a government that tells the truth, or would like a leader who tells the truth. And the first thing people do is say look the last bloke is gone, we have to just crack on with lying. And yet it’s me who’s in the wrong for not really wanting to vote for liars and charlatans and careerists. You’d think it’d be the other way around but obviously not. We should all lie, cheat and avoid tax and sh*t on people.

 

[viv_andersons_nana]

I think it’s fair enough to be dubious but, as of today, we have nothing to suggest he has changed his mind.

What is out of order is for Roofie and others to print bile and nonsense as ‘fact’.
The very people who quite rightly railed against the fake news schoite spouted about Corbyn.


There is another elephant in the room here.
The dogma that says you promise something in 2020 and must deliver it in 2024 when you are elected.

There isn’t a business in the world that is referring to their 2020 strategy - it’s all a bit different now.
Politicians should reflect and adapt too.

But there are principles, surely. Your principles don’t change do they. Or maybe they do. It feels like they do. It’s just not what I was brought up to believe. Maybe I was brought up wrong.

 

[Ironops]

Does he though?

I’m not having a go. I’m just dubious because he said he was doing to renationalise water and energy as well. How can we be so sure that he means what he says about the railways.

He said he was going to, now he is saying he cant as we dont have the money. Its a bit of a stretch to call it lying...

 

[Chris_Boro]

I don’t want to be placing all of these eggs in one basket but YouGov have him around 31% in terms of people who think he’s ‘doing well’ as leader, as opposed to 49% who think the opposite. I’m just looking at their graph now and he’s dropped 12% since August. And in that time, the Tories have continued to collapse and cause controversy after controversy.

I appreciate there may/will be other polling companies who may say something slightly different. But the main thing is Labour’s lead is shortening. That coincides with them being actually asked what they will do if they win. They are literally telling people there isn’t much that they can change.

Polls are influenced by media, all of the things that Sunak has done or been involved it has gone largely unreported unless you look for it, which the general voter population doesn't. However, recently Labour have been highlighted negatively. If you follow polls like I do, you can see the correlation.

If the population was equally informed about the scale of Tory scandals and incompetence, they wouldn't stand a chance. If you look at the current media output, you would conclude that Sunak has largely steadied the Tory boat after Johnson and Truss and is doing ok.

He, of course isn’t but that's not what the wider, none politically motivated, voters are seeing when the glance at the headlines.

 

[viv_andersons_nana]

He said he was going to, now he is saying he cant as we dont have the money. Its a bit of a stretch to call it lying...

Well we do have the money. It’s just that more and more of it is being hoarded and stashed away by the wealthy. That’s the root of the issue here, let’s just accept that. I mean, you wouldn’t know it, listening to these politicians talking as if we don’t have a pot to p*ss in but there’s billions and billions of pounds disappearing upwards while we’re told there’s just nothing anyone can do about it.

The system is f*cked. We know it, they know it, they know we know it. But to admit it would be to admit their complicity. So best to just lie about it and pretend it isn’t happening.

 

[1finny]

Who says we should rinse and repeat? The last leader has long gone. And, again, it’s not me bringing up Jeremy Corbyn.

It’s interesting though because I’ve said I’d like a government that tells the truth, or would like a leader who tells the truth. And the first thing people do is say look the last bloke is gone, we have to just crack on with lying. And yet it’s me who’s in the wrong for not really wanting to vote for liars and charlatans and careerists. You’d think it’d be the other way around but obviously not. We should all lie, cheat and avoid tax and sh*t on people.

I’d love to vote for a government or politician who tells the truth.

I can say with some certainty that from Blair onwards we have had no leader of any of the main parties who could be seen to fall into that category.

 

[1finny]

But there are principles, surely. Your principles don’t change do they. Or maybe they do. It feels like they do. It’s just not what I was brought up to believe. Maybe I was brought up wrong.

On a personal note I’m with you here.
Looking at our elected politicians - they do change.

 

[Chris_Boro]

This may shock you, but over the years there have been a number of politicians more interested in their own personal benefit rather than making life easier for normal people.

I'll be more shocked by the evidence you're going to present that printing money doesn't cause inflation.

You are the one claiming that Labour/Starmer can pay for £100 + billions of election policy promises by printing new money.

If Labour went to the polls claiming the above, they would be absolutely slaughtered by the average voter, business leaders and press, and rightly so.

I'll also ask you another question, would you be willing to pay higher taxes instead?

 

[coluka]

Who says we should rinse and repeat? The last leader has long gone. And, again, it’s not me bringing up Jeremy Corbyn.

It’s interesting though because I’ve said I’d like a government that tells the truth, or would like a leader who tells the truth. And the first thing people do is say look the last bloke is gone, we have to just crack on with lying. And yet it’s me who’s in the wrong for not really wanting to vote for liars and charlatans and careerists. You’d think it’d be the other way around but obviously not. We should all lie, cheat and avoid tax and sh*t on people.

We all want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but what political leaders ever tell it as it is, and if they did, it would likely (depending on the issues) turn voters against them anyway.

Starmer can not blindly keep to things he said previously in an ever changing world, economic downturn caused by mismanagement, he has to react to it and change with it, priorities will obviously change with the times and affordability. I would argue changing his tack is being honest given the backdrop, imagine if he waited till after an election like Johnson did dropping manifesto pledges.

You may not like his evolution I don’t agree with his every word either, but i look at what the only credible alternative is and my god, it is a real likelihood if people like you can’t hold your nose and do what is in our best interests right now, like I did in 2019, the difference now is that there is a much greater chance of ousting the tories than previously, to put ideology before reality is plain stupid, an own goal, an act of sheer self harm for yourself and fellow countrymen and woman imho.

 

[Nano]

This is the problem with not having an ideology. If you choose your policies with the direction of a discarded carrier bag taken by the breeze then nobody knows what the **** you stand for or where it might lead if they follow.

If you have an ideology and you can explain that to people then you can make pledges that you can keep. You don't have to implement them all on day one. You state what the end goal is and that over time that is where we are heading when conditions are right. Incremental changes are possible. If you say you want to nationalise the rail then you do it, even if it is piecemeal nationalisation etc.

People keep arguing that it's important to win and then we can move left in the future but that is just hopeless faith in nothing. There is no evidence which way Starmer will go.

If you don't have an ideology or you do and you don't have the conviction to let others know what that is then that is how you end up as directionless as Starmer appears to be.

 

[SuperStu]

You are the one claiming that Labour/Starmer can pay for £100 + billions of election policy promises by printing new money.

All I've done is answer your questions. I think you're being a bit misleading with how you're characterising my answers. I didn't say just print money did I? I was specific that it completely depends on who/what you then give that money to. For some reason, you're of the opinion that normal people paying taxes causes inflation. I don't know where you've got that idea but it's misguided. The opposite is true. Inflation is just a measure of the money supply. When the government prints more there is more, when people pay more back to the government there is less. Hence why letting billionaires hide more and more and more away that never gets taxed is the issue.

If Labour went to the polls claiming the above, they would be absolutely slaughtered by the average voter, business leaders and press, and rightly so.

And? Putting to one side the fact that "the above" isn't what I said anyway, what makes you think the "average voter" has all the answers? Do you think the "average voter"s have been making good choices these last 15 years? The last 50 years?

I'll also ask you another question, would you be willing to pay higher taxes instead?

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking here. Income tax? Are you asking about a hypothetical scenario where everyone pays more or do you think the government should pick me personally out for some sort of unique tax punishment? Are you still asking this in connection to nationalising trains? Is there a trade off with train ticket prices? Or do train services improve on the back of the extra tax?

 

[Chris_Boro]

This is the problem with not having an ideology. If you choose your policies with the direction of a discarded carrier bag taken by the breeze then nobody knows what the **** you stand for or where it might lead if they follow.

If you have an ideology and you can explain that to people then you can make pledges that you can keep. You don't have to implement them all on day one. You state what the end goal is and that over time that is where we are heading when conditions are right. Incremental changes are possible. If you say you want to nationalise the rail then you do it, even if it is piecemeal nationalisation etc.

People keep arguing that it's important to win and then we can move left in the future but that is just hopeless faith in nothing. There is no evidence which way Starmer will go.

If you don't have an ideology or you do and you don't have the conviction to let others know what that is then that is how you end up as directionless as Starmer appears to be.

So the ideology behind his original pledges was a lie now that he's saying that the current economic reality makes them infeasible?

If he had an ideology without policy, he would be slated for that too. The simple fact right now is we have no idea what the ever increasing damage to our economy and critical infrastructure/services will be by the next election.

It may take decades to repair what the Tories have broken to allow a return to consistent growth.

 

[LBPHoppe]

Andy Burnham should be next Labour leader for me

 

[r00fie1]

The political ideology Starmer represents is the judicial road to authoritarianism.
Its taking away our human rights and freedoms in order to "protect" us(!) To "protect" "our" "security". To "protect" us from nuisance, from strikes, from refugees, from "those who would harm us", from "terrorists", from those who "dont support our(?) values", from dissent, from the freedom to have an opinion and the right to protest. That ideology deliberately neutralises freedom and individual rights in order to "protect" the rich and powerful. That ideology is dangerous and is effecting our lives now. "First they came....".​

 

[coluka]

Andy Burnham should be next Labour leader for me

Sadly, he isn’t an MP and has indicated he is happy where he is.

 

[coluka]

The political ideology Starmer represents is the judicial road to authoritarianism.
Its taking away our human rights and freedoms in order to "protect" us(!) To "protect" "our" "security". To "protect" us from nuisance, from strikes, from refugees, from "those who would harm us", from "terrorists", from those who "dont support our(?) values", from dissent, from the freedom to have an opinion and the right to protest. That ideology deliberately neutralises freedom and individual rights in order to "protect" the rich and powerful. That ideology is dangerous and is effecting our lives now. "First they came....".​

No offence roofie1, but that is a massive leap and scaremongering imho. That rhetoric will turn people away and want to stick with the tories if they were undecided. We all have to live under rule, it is a fact of life and thank goodness we do. I accept there are balances in freedoms, but suggesting Starmer wants to remove freedoms and rule as some sort of a tin pot authoritarian dictator will have the tories rubbing their hands with glee.

 

[Chris_Boro]

All I've done is answer your questions. I think you're being a bit misleading with how you're characterising my answers. I didn't say just print money did I? I was specific that it completely depends on who/what you then give that money to. For some reason, you're of the opinion that normal people paying taxes causes inflation. I don't know where you've got that idea but it's misguided. The opposite is true. Inflation is just a measure of the money supply. When the government prints more there is more, when people pay more back to the government there is less. Hence why letting billionaires hide more and more and more away that never gets tax is the issue.



And? Putting to one side the fact that "the above" isn't what I said anyway, what makes you think the "average voter" has all the answers? Do you think the "average voter"s have been making good choices these last 15 years? The last 50 years?



I'm not sure exactly what you're asking here. Income tax? Are you asking about a hypothetical scenario where everyone pays more or do you think the government should pick me personally out for some sort of unique tax punishment? Are you still asking this in connection to nationalising trains? Is there a trade off with train ticket prices? Or do train services improve on the back of the extra tax?

I'm asking how you (or anyone who believes similarly to you really) believe Labour could keep to pledges to spend £100s of billions on policy promises, as that is the basis of the attacks on Starmer dropping them.

Printing money in such large scales for the sole purpose of policy purchase will causes rapid inflation, it will shock the markets and shatter confidence, unless there's sufficient growth to match and we currently have none. Labour cannot go into the next election on that gamble, they would be slaughtered.

Right now, Labour are going to find it hard to convince people they can afford to raise money to fund the NHS. Nevermind any sort of other pledge.

And don't be ridiculous, I was asking if you would support paying higher taxes to fund the pledge as a whole. Not on you personally.

 

[bumface]

My choice would be someone who hasn’t repeatedly lied to everyone’s faces for the past three years. But that’s just me.

It isn't just you.