Election Year or Fear!

[macstheman]

It still worries that Starmer is reactive and not proactive seeming to test the water first before making a move. To me he has more to offer and needs to convince the electorate he is the man to kick the scum into touch!!

[swaledale]

It still worries that Starmer is reactive and not proactive seeming to test the water first before making a move. To me he has more to offer and needs to convince the electorate he is the man to kick the scum into touch!!

Totally agree, very disappointed at the lack of vison, maybe this will come when its election time in the manifesto, but worried that Labour are restricting their room to manoeuvre, by ruling out tax increases on those that can afford to pay, or who don't currently pay their fair share.

History suggests, trying to woo voters who like right wing beliefs is pointless, they wont vote Labour they will vote Reform or some other lunatic fringe right wing party.

His reduction on the green investment plan is also IMO a mistake, we need a firm policy that provides hope and action, at this rate we will not be moving fast enough in insulating homes and building a more sustainable economy.

The past 1 4years have shown that cutting public spending only results in stagnation, the government needs to invest in order to build confidence and get the economy growing. I fear their approach of depending upon growth somehow materialising to pay for ***** services won't happen.

I understand Labour being cautious, despite 14 years of Tory failings and the errors of Truss ad co, the mainly right wing media will attack Labour on the basis that the Tories are more financially responsible, I would have thought a one word answer would be enough...Truss!

[swaledale]

Regarding BBC ‘celebs’ (I didn’t bring Lineker up) I simply think they are overpaid, BBC should be brave, recontract at the appropriate times at 50% of current salaries and take the rating hit if any - on which subject, BBC News seems to have managed without £500k Huw Edwards just fine

But that is what the BBC did, and indeed are still doing, though they didn't cut by 50%, and I know you didn't mention Lineker, I used him as an example. Believing a "celeb" is overpaid and whether that is true isn't necessarily the same thing. Its not necessarily about the rating hit, its about being able to produce quality news and other programmes. Lose all your "star" presenters and you will have an issue, as for Huw Edwards an interesting case, though they do still have others to do his job, but look at the fuss thats made when certain radio celebs are axed. Its a difficult area to balance but certainly as far as the BBC are concerned there has been a significant reduction in the amounts paid to what you term "celebs" in recent years, hence why many have jumped ship.

[swaledale]

Regarding executive pay a) it’s obscene b) dedpite saying that I benefit from their corporations through my pension so there are no clean hands and c) my ire in particular is aimed at the public sector because as I said I can choose where I get my milk but not my water

But your happy for the less talented to run organisations in the public sector? In both there are people who are paid far more than they are worth, but public sector organisations do have to pay a competitive salary or they wont be able to recruit the right people for the job. I left the public sector principally because I could double my salary and actually have a lower workload!!

By the way water has been in the private sector for years now, so your criticising the monopoly situation I take it?

[ramAnag]

It still worries that Starmer is reactive and not proactive seeming to test the water first before making a move. To me he has more to offer and needs to convince the electorate he is the man to kick the scum into touch!!

I can cope with cautious, tentative and a ‘tester of the water’. Let’s face it…the last charismatic and inventive candidate who actually delivered was Blair…quite a while ago now. Johnson was, allegedly, charismatic and look how that went…Farage likewise!
Anyway let’s be grateful we don’t have a leader who literally kills off any opposition, or a ‘charismatic’ - aka insane - candidate who paints himself orange and is facing ninety one charges across four separate court cases.
In such circumstances and after the last four**** years of decline a ‘safe pair of hands’ will do me at the moment.

[Andy_Faber]

But your happy for the less talented to run organisations in the public sector? In both there are people who are paid far more than they are worth, but public sector organisations do have to pay a competitive salary or they wont be able to recruit the right people for the job. I left the public sector principally because I could double my salary and actually have a lower workload!!

By the way water has been in the private sector for years now, so your criticising the monopoly situation I take it?

Yes I mean a pseudo public sector utility monopoly

[Andy_Faber]

I Farage likewise!
.

Id actually counter that NF is the most successful ‘politician’ of our era, he set himself one target and hit it. He could and no doubt would argue that any subsequent implementation fubar was not his responsibility because the same people who supported him in Brexit decided on someone(s) else to take it forward. Who knows what he could have achieved. Note none of the above indicates support for him, just his performance

[Andy_Faber]

But your happy for the less talented to run organisations in the public sector? In both there are people who are paid far more than they are worth, but public sector organisations do have to pay a competitive salary or they wont be able to recruit the right people for the job. I left the public sector principally because I could double my salary and actually have a lower workload!!

By the way water has been in the private sector for years now, so your criticising the monopoly situation I take it?

I’m not ‘happy’ but I don’t believe that such people are ‘magic’ enough to command such remuneration and supply and demand in the talent pool should result in much lower remuneration for roughly the same skills, I’m more fussy about this in the public sector because I feel it’s ‘my’ money

[ramAnag]

Id actually counter that NF is the most successful ‘politician’ of our era, he set himself one target and hit it. He could and no doubt would argue that any subsequent implementation fubar was not his responsibility because the same people who supported him in Brexit decided on someone(s) else to take it forward. Who knows what he could have achieved. Note none of the above indicates support for him, just his performance

Define ‘successful politician’.
What has he actually achieved? He has failed, on numerous occasions, to get himself elected. He played a prominent role, along with Johnson and others, in getting ‘Brexit done’. Is that an achievement? Clearly not in my eyes and not in the eyes of an increasing number of the UK population one could very reasonably argue.

If feathering his own nest and generally acting in an entirely self serving way is your definition of a ‘successful politician’ then you’re clearly right.
Mine is…instigating and seeing through change that improves society…in that respect NF is the epitome of divisive and damaging failure imo.
It’s easy to come up with ideas for change if you then have absolutely no responsibility for seeing through the consequences of such change.

[Andy_Faber]

Define ‘successful politician’.
What has he actually achieved? He has failed, on numerous occasions, to get himself elected. He played a prominent role, along with Johnson and others, in getting ‘Brexit done’. Is that an achievement? Clearly not in my eyes and not in the eyes of an increasing number of the UK population one could very reasonably argue.

If feathering his own nest and generally acting in an entirely self serving way is your definition of a ‘successful politician’ then you’re clearly right.
Mine is…instigating and seeing through change that improves society…in that respect NF is the epitome of divisive and damaging failure imo.
It’s easy to come up with ideas for change if you then have absolutely no responsibility for seeing through the consequences of such change.

I think you’re letting personal enmity get in the way of objectivity.

[ramAnag]

I think you’re letting personal enmity get in the way of objectivity.

I don’t think so. Objectively…his only achievement has been to create probably the single most divisive event in British political history since the days of the Miners’ strikes or the speeches of Enoch Powell and he has failed completely and repeatedly to win election to any position of authority…but, I’ve got a match to go to so…COYR.

[swaledale]

Yes I mean a pseudo public sector utility monopoly

I don't disagree its a monopoly, but its hardly pseudo public sector, given the loading of debt onto the companies, the cash paid out in dividends to shareholders and the salary plus bonus paid to the execs. No public sector organisation I know operates like that.

[swaledale]

Its not the fact that Starmer appears to ahve little charisma or is a "boring" personality that is the issue, a competent person as Pm would be a welcome relief, it the tendency to be over cautious, withdraw or water down policies when the Tories attack them and the lack of a clear vision being communicated to the voters that's a worry.

Getting elected on Labour is a touch nearer the centre than the obviously hopeless Tories is not exactly making voters think, this lot will change things for the better is it?

[MadAmster]

Labour's green deal, shut down. They gave the reason as being the drastic change in how much/little the Exchequer currently has. An eminently sensible decision until such time as they get a look at the figures, IMO.

Tax the rich? It would be a sensible decision. The moment it gets launched we all know the right wing press will have a go at it as will Tories and reform UK parties. Leaving it until election manifesto time to announce it gives the other lot far less time to ram it down people's throats and might be a wise move.

[swaledale]

Labour's green deal, shut down. They gave the reason as being the drastic change in how much/little the Exchequer currently has. An eminently sensible decision until such time as they get a look at the figures, IMO.

Tax the rich? It would be a sensible decision. The moment it gets launched we all know the right wing press will have a go at it as will Tories and reform UK parties. Leaving it until election manifesto time to announce it gives the other lot far less time to ram it down people's throats and might be a wise move.

Trouble is MA, this how much/how little the Exchequer has is a weak excuse and the green agenda was a flagship policy, if they can't stand the attacks from the right now, what is their response going to be in an election campaign? IMO they should have stuck to their guns and found ways to fund it, like a windfall tax on energy firms, a tax on bankers bonuses, closing the non dom loophole, levying national insurance on capital gains.

If they go into the election hampering their ability to change things by self imposed fiscal restraints then they will not achieve what's required and could find themselves booted out after 5 years by voters who expect more.

IMO a better response was that we have costed it and how it will be paid for and this will be in our manifesto come the election.

The majority of economists take the view that there has to be a rise in targeted public expenditure in order to stimulate growth, the past 13 plus years of austerity have resulted in a flat lining economy, obviously exacerbated by a disastrous Brexit deal.

One only has to look at the detail of Biden's inflation reduction act, which has stimulated the economy to see whats required, plus if this action is delayed much longer then the necessary work to reduce carbon emissions and create a thriving green economy will not happen and then we will all be ****ed.