Tiverton By Election

billsykes

Active member
I'm not a Tory voters by any stretch of the imagination and I hope Labour wipe the floor with them in the next GE. But I haven't spoken to many people who have connected with Kier Starmer at all, I listen to a lot of politics based phone ins on the radio while I'm driving and I hear the same over and over again from callers.

As bad as Johnson is I just don't see labour winning an election with Starmer at the helm, he's good at cross examining Johnson in the commons but as a public personality he's as dull as dishwater. It shouldn't matter but it does.

Where does he stand on the railway strikes and public payrises? He seems to be trying hard not to upset anyone and play it safe. At some point he's got to show people what he's about and what he stands for.

The other thing that Tories are miles ahead with at the moment is getting messages out to the public. Its 90% lies with them but with the majority of the written press on their side they control a lot of the narratives that people fall for hook line and sinker. I still hear people talking about Corbyn as a terrorist sympathiser or this current rail strike being held by drivers. If you keep committing to the same lie then people start to believe it.

I know Starmer doesn't want to stoop to Johnson's level but at some point labour need to fight fire with fire.
Starmer needs to keep his mouth shut, let Boris and his party hang themselves, keep all future policy under wraps and then come out all guns blazing when it really counts.

Anything he says or does now is wasted, just letting the conservatives have time to prepare new lies and steal policies.
 

Andy_W

Well-known member
They don't need to connect with him, I think it's kind of the point, if he starts acting with loads of "charachter", like Johnson supposedly does (not in my opinion mind), then some might just think we have another clown on our hands. No point taking the risk, don't give the Tories anything to shoot him down with, and they'll shoot themselves, like they have been doing since BJ came in.

I'm fine with no real stance on the strikes or public payrises, as I suppose that's the centre view, which is the area where he needs to win. I generally don't agree with strikes, as they seem to lead to trouble, and also rises across the board, rather than rises for those who need them most.

Inflation is the big problem, and wages will never match inflation as high as it is now, and if it does the country would go broke as it would not be able to export anything, and exports are already struggling with brexit etc.

I think the lies are wearing thin, hence BJ's disapproval rating skyrocketing, they're like the boy who cried wolf now, even if they were actually truthful and said they were going to do something good for the low-middle class, nobody would believe it anyway.

The Tories won't be able to blame labour for anything come the next GE, as they will have been in power for 15 years, with large majorities.

I think Labour's tactics are right, play it relatively quiet/ safe, and just take the odd pot shot, when the Tories are wide open, and just save the full attack for the last year leading into the GE.

There's been a big increase in tactical voting/ vote swapping, or word about that is getting around more now, and almost anyone who's not a tory, will vote for anyone to get the tories out, which is great.

There's only so many people who read newspapers, and it's getting less and less, which is good for Labour/ Lib Dem/ Greens etc, and bad for Tories, and more and more people are wising up to online news, and which are biased or balanced.
See, it's working (very well), can't understand why people are against what Labour are/ aren't doing now, they've got the tactics almost spot on, unlike previous where they had zero interest in trying to win the votes which win elections (the centre).

You don't need to try and score if the other team is insistent on scoring own goals. Just let them have the ball. You won't sway the oppositions die hard fans, but some will walk out an not come back again, and the neutrals looking at the results would more likely join the winning team, if they had to.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
The point someone made about strikes above and not agreeing with them and that wages never match inflation is total nonsense. When Blair was in no 10 we had inflation at 1.4% and over 10 years wages rise in real terms by 24%. I think it was Andy w.

Don't believe the lies of the tories
 

Andy_W

Well-known member
The point someone made about strikes above and not agreeing with them and that wages never match inflation is total nonsense. When Blair was in no 10 we had inflation at 1.4% and over 10 years wages rise in real terms by 24%. I think it was Andy w.

Don't believe the lies of the tories
It doesn't match inflation when inflation is through the roof was what I meant, it can't as it ends up a positive fedback loop. Inflation up, wages up, which drives inflation up, which drives wages up etc, it doesn't work.

We need to get inflation down, not try and chase it with wages, as it would be an endless chase.

If inflation went back to 1%, and wages 2%, then wages would catch this deficit back up.

We could end up in a deflation situation (if wages don't chase it), and things come back down 5-10% or whatever, but if we've then put up wages 10%, would people be advocating that wages come back down again? Obviously not.

The tories are full of crap, but the econemy is going to have to take covid and the war on the chin, and ride it out, there's no other way. During this time we could obviously support those worse off and tax the higher earners to make up for that, but obviously they won't do that, because they Tories, only interested in the top 1%.
 

junos_boots

Well-known member
It doesn't match inflation when inflation is through the roof was what I meant, it cayn't as it ends up a positive fedback loop. Inflation up, wages up, which drives inflation up, which drives wages up etc, it doesn't work.

We need to get inflation down, not try and chase it with wages, as it would be an endless chase.

If inflation went back to 1%, and wages 2%, then wages would catch this deficit back up.

We could end up in a deflation situation (if wages don't chase it), and things come back down 5-10% or whatever, but if we've then put up wages 10%, would people be advocating that wages come back down again? Obviously not.

The tories are full of crap, but the econemy is going to have to take covid and the war on the chin, and ride it out, there's no other way. During this time we could obviously support those worse off and tax the higher earners to make up for that, but obviously they won't do that, because they Tories, only interested in the top 1%.
You can make these arguments and there is some logic to it, but the problem is that over the last 10 years when inflation has not really been a problem, public sector workers were STILL getting below inflation pay rises. So in real life in the UK your argument hasn't worked.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
It doesn't match inflation when inflation is through the roof was what I meant, it can't as it ends up a positive fedback loop. Inflation up, wages up, which drives inflation up, which drives wages up etc, it doesn't work.

We need to get inflation down, not try and chase it with wages, as it would be an endless chase.

If inflation went back to 1%, and wages 2%, then wages would catch this deficit back up.

We could end up in a deflation situation (if wages don't chase it), and things come back down 5-10% or whatever, but if we've then put up wages 10%, would people be advocating that wages come back down again? Obviously not.

The tories are full of crap, but the econemy is going to have to take covid and the war on the chin, and ride it out, there's no other way. During this time we could obviously support those worse off and tax the higher earners to make up for that, but obviously they won't do that, because they Tories, only interested in the top 1%.
Right got it. Your still wrong of course. Inflation isn't being caused by consumers. Let's put the onus on the poor to get us out of this, not the rich or businesses' taking a hit on profit. We should stand by and watch the poor starve and freeze.

Sorry Andy utter nonsense.
 

Andy_W

Well-known member
You can make these arguments and there is some logic to it, but the problem is that over the last 10 years when inflation has not really been a problem, public sector workers were STILL getting below inflation pay rises. So in real life in the UK your argument hasn't worked.
Yeah, that's down to the Tories though, not really an economics thing, if Labour were in then wages would have likely matched inflation, and that extra cost would have been recovered elsewhere. We have been in/ recovering from a recession mind (not labours fault), but that's never going to be great for wage growth. Also not great when the Tories hit the worst off with Austerity etc.

You need both things, inflation down, and a government who will protect the least well off/ public sector etc.
 

BoroMart

Well-known member
Right got it. Your still wrong of course. Inflation isn't being caused by consumers. Let's put the onus on the poor to get us out of this, not the rich or businesses' taking a hit on profit. We should stand by and watch the poor starve and freeze.
it's the greed from investment firms wanting to drive prices up to guarantee a minimum profit for their wealth management fund and ultimately the uber rich that invest their 'hard earned' in those funds. They want the poor to take the brunt of the pain, and are not prepared to drop their return on investment to keep costs down. This is proven by the fact that the wealth has been transferring for a decade from the poor to the rich. There are ample metrics out there to support this view.

Yes there are other factors such as ukraine and brexit and green pledges driving costs up, but the reality is the rich expect a return on their money, and don't give a hoot that it impacts the cost of living and ultimately inflation
 
Last edited:

Andy_W

Well-known member
Right got it. Your still wrong of course. Inflation isn't being caused by consumers. Let's put the onus on the poor to get us out of this, not the rich or businesses' taking a hit on profit. We should stand by and watch the poor starve and freeze.

Sorry Andy utter nonsense.
Inflation this time has been caused by a year of less demand, followed by a surge in demand that can't be handled by the available workforce/ material stock, and then demand for the energy to provide all this has gone through the roof, largely due to demand, and the war.

There are many things which have an impact on inflation, materials/ fuel/ labour are three of the main ones, we're currently ticking two boxes, if we increased wages it would tick three, so inflation could be 15% rather than 10% etc. You might get a 5% rise, but everything you buy could go up a further 5% so what's the point? Labour is one of the largest costs to businesses, to think that business could operate the same with an increased labour cost, and not have to pass that on is living in a dreamland. You could increase tax across the board, which would hit all companies, but the big ones would survive and the small one's ticking over would go under, then you get a recession. Like I say, tax the bigger companies/ earners, and distribute it to the worst off with benefits or grants, and the middle lot end up having to take it on the chin.

Who said put the onus on the poor to get us out of this? Other than yourself? I'm all for changing the tax structure to help those worst off, and tax those benefiting from windfalls etc. The average company isn't making more money, and we're forecast for zero growth. They may be turning over more, largely as they're charging more as their cost have gone up due to inflation. I've also said we should be supplement the energy bills of those worse off.

Increasing wages isn't the answer, increased tax (on the higher earners/ companies) and re-distributing that while we get over this inflation problem is.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
Inflation this time has been caused by a year of less demand, followed by a surge in demand that can't be handled by the available workforce/ material stock, and then demand for the energy to provide all this has gone through the roof, largely due to demand, and the war.

There are many things which have an impact on inflation, materials/ fuel/ labour are three of the main ones, we're currently ticking two boxes, if we increased wages it would tick three, so inflation could be 15% rather than 10% etc. You might get a 5% rise, but everything you buy could go up a further 5% so what's the point? Labour is one of the largest costs to businesses, to think that business could operate the same with an increased labour cost, and not have to pass that on is living in a dreamland. You could increase tax across the board, which would hit all companies, but the big ones would survive and the small one's ticking over would go under, then you get a recession. Like I say, tax the bigger companies/ earners, and distribute it to the worst off with benefits or grants, and the middle lot end up having to take it on the chin.

Who said put the onus on the poor to get us out of this? Other than yourself? I'm all for changing the tax structure to help those worst off, and tax those benefiting from windfalls etc. The average company isn't making more money, and we're forecast for zero growth. They may be turning over more, largely as they're charging more as their cost have gone up due to inflation. I've also said we should be supplement the energy bills of those worse off.

Increasing wages isn't the answer, increased tax (on the higher earners/ companies) and re-distributing that while we get over this inflation problem is.
So your answer is to keep poor people poor, hungry and cold. Ok.

The single biggest driver of the current inflation is fuel costs. Our inflation is twice that of France or Germany. If you factor in a contracting economy its 3 times as high.

You really are buying into a tory narrative that is nonsense.
 
Top
X