Starmer VIII: Labour will set you free

[shoulders]

Labour's plan isn't identifying or fixing  a broken system,  it's the state paying private energy companies the expected return,  effectively underwriting -  with our money - their greed. It is a mate popping down to the shops to get you another bottle of whisky rather than telling you you've got a drinking problem.

It's also a redundant policy as such,  because it can't be enacted because they aren't in government. I can just as much say 'energy bills will be frozen at the current rate before October' as the Labour Party can.

A policy,  for example,  would be how to fix the system. That provides  a point of difference,  a reason to boot the current lot out and a reason to vote for the alternative.

We're so way past this it's unreal. Starmer literally replaying the Miliband era.

[Johnny Yesno]

Starmer literally replaying the Miliband era.

Not even that. At least Miliband came across as essentially likeable.

[Zetetic]

And it endorses the prices by October as appropriate.

[PlanktonSideburns]

Not even that. At least Miliband came across as essentially likeable.

Starmer hasn't even bought a stone

[idunnosomename]

Rachel Reeves is gonna marmalise him

[kittens]

im having some fun thinking about the labour leaders as if theyre doctor who. and like they change and have their own little things and then they change and the new one has their things they do. it's fun and you can kinda stop thinking about politics and just do it in a silly way. give it a a try!

[Johnny Yesno]

im having some fun thinking about the labour leaders as if theyre doctor who. and like they change and have their own little things and then they change and the new one has their things they do. it's fun and you can kinda stop thinking about politics and just do it in a silly way. give it a a try!

I'm all for diversity and that but they should never have given the role to a useless piece of ham.

[BigotsShouldWheest]

Really though, I just don't think you are willing to criticise him in any way regardless of what he says. You've not engaged with it whatsoever just said I'm reading it wrong. So what is the correct reading of it?

I don't think it's 'doing the establishments job' to want people on our side to make better arguments so they don't get made to look bad to people reading an article like that. It's bad when stuff like this might be preventing his core message (which is fucking righteous) from getting through. Wanting him to improve messaging is not trashing the guy or the movement.

Coming to this a few days late, but you just accidentally perfectly encapsulated why UK politics is so broken;

* If people reading an article think someone asking for help for British people is a bad argument,
* And you think it's more important to make people who think like that feel the speaker has a "better argument"
* How do you ever think people will be able to make an argument for helping British people? It'll always be a bad argument.

Buelligan is pointing out that the problem is with the electorate that refuses to think in terms of better arguments themselves.  And to add myself, the kind of pandering to people with bad thinking is why we drift ever slowly rightwards, as instead of leading people to better, we try to conform to their most prejudicial beliefs now, whilst the Right is pushing the Overton window to normalise even worse thoughts for the future.

To quote that famous phrase again;

"Meet me in the middle" says the Unjust Man
You take a step towards him. He takes a step backwards.
"Meet me in the middle" says the Unjust Man.

[Blumf]

I'm all for diversity and that but they should never have given the role to a useless piece of ham.

Not a Colin Baker fan?

[Old Nehamkin]

im having some fun thinking about the labour leaders as if theyre doctor who. and like they change and have their own little things and then they change and the new one has their things they do. it's fun and you can kinda stop thinking about politics and just do it in a silly way. give it a a try!

Starmer is definitely Jodie Whittaker based on the episode I saw where she goes to a space amazon warehouse and she's like "maybe the bosses and the workers are both at fault here"

[thugler]

Coming to this a few days late, but you just accidentally perfectly encapsulated why UK politics is so broken;

* If people reading an article think someone asking for help for British people is a bad argument,
* And you think it's more important to make people who think like that feel the speaker has a "better argument"
* How do you ever think people will be able to make an argument for helping British people? It'll always be a bad argument.

Buelligan is pointing out that the problem is with the electorate that refuses to think in terms of better arguments themselves.  And to add myself, the kind of pandering to people with bad thinking is why we drift ever slowly rightwards, as instead of leading people to better, we try to conform to their most prejudicial beliefs now, whilst the Right is pushing the Overton window to normalise even worse thoughts for the future.

To quote that famous phrase again;

"Meet me in the middle" says the Unjust Man
You take a step towards him. He takes a step backwards.
"Meet me in the middle" says the Unjust Man.

The better argument is surely to be against both things. Am I really asking too much for him to not needlessly dismiss the issue when it's brought up. There's no need for issues to be in competition with each other. The 'ooh both sides' stuff on Ukraine is pretty weak also. My argument was not that there is no problem in this country.

Also a quote like "The free movement of labour I don't think helps anyone," is obviously a bad and wrong take. By all means point out the issues that it brings, but it's quite evidently not all bad.

The parts about the uk and unions are spot on and he should stick to that.

He's great at what he does and a strong presence on the left in the media lately. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have bad takes or cannot be criticised.

[Buelligan]

How do you feel about the way he dresses, are all the fibres used, the cotton, for instance, ethically sourced?  What do you think about his diet - is meat-eating acceptable for someone in his position? I'm sure there's more, I mean, I'm amazed you're not saying much about the Brexit thing, or do you agree with him there, because I'm sure there are lots lefties who don't.

What blows my tiny gourd is that you gave Starmer a chance.  You wanted Starmer, an open shill, to have a chance but you seem incredibly fastidious about this.  It's strange.

[thugler]

How do you feel about the way he dresses, are all the fibres used, the cotton, for instance, ethically sourced?  What do you think about his diet - is meat-eating acceptable for someone in his position? I'm sure there's more, I mean, I'm amazed you're not saying much about the Brexit thing, or do you agree with him there, because I'm sure there are lots lefties who don't.

What blows my tiny gourd is that you gave Starmer a chance.  You wanted Starmer, an open shill, to have a chance but you seem incredibly fastidious about this.  It's strange.

Come on I'm hardly attacking the guys character, I'm pointing out he has a couple of bad takes he needn't be having.

I've already pointed out that the brexit thing has gotten us further away from nationalisation rather than closer to it. He might have had a point on that if we had a socialist government in place, but we don't. Many European nations have more nationalisation than we do so i think he's pretty wrong there also.

Many people voted for Starmer based on the pledges. I don't need to like someone if i feel they might have a chance at getting us closer to our goals. The Corbyn era wasn't about Corbyn specifically for me, it was the policies. And still is. My support was entirely dependent on him backing those policies. Even then I thought both options were bad and said so. I'd give any leader backing good policies 'a chance' in that regard.

Much in the same way, I can see how someone like Andy Burnham is a pretty untrustworthy establishment guy also, but now seems willing to back pretty good policy (which was not the case in the leadership election he was part of previously), so I don't particularly care about that.

[Johnny Yesno]

Not a Colin Baker fan?

Heh! I did say a piece of ham rather than a ham but, no, I'm not a Colin Baker fan.

Starmer is definitely Jodie Whittaker based on the episode I saw where she goes to a space amazon warehouse and she's like "maybe the bosses and the workers are both at fault here"

Nailed it.

[Buelligan]

The Corbyn era wasn't about Corbyn specifically for me, it was the policies.

I don't want to feed this but just wanted to address the Corbyn point.  I've never met or spoken to anyone whose support for Corbyn was about Corbyn specifically.  It was about the policies AND about knowing the history of the person (in this case, Corbyn but it could apply to Mick Lynch).  Knowing that their previous life indicated that the person selling the dream was not a liar or a thief.  That they understood solidarity, believed in it.  Lived by it.

Any cunt, like Starmer, can put on a suit and lie.  Seeing the difference.  Understanding that words are only part of the deal, is important.  Utterly critical really. 


^{What it says on the tin}

I mean, look at what Keith's saying now about the energy.  Do you really believe he means any of it?

[shoulders]

Is it OK to say that free movement of labour is a good thing between comparatively equal societies, but not in societies when there is a power imbalance?

Clearly free movement of labour caused brain drain in the ex-Eastern bloc which was primarily about suppressing wage increases  in the established West. When the iron curtain fell businesspeople weren't getting misty eyed about the end of tyranny,  they were seeing many new markets entering the economy.

The system along with Western prosperity still relies on a supply of cheap labour. Liberal remainers want that to continue, and being vocally pro-immigration and anti-racist appears to be a smokescreen for what we know to be the exploitation of poor people to our benefit and their expense.

So I feel personally conflicted about it. I would like free movement, but only in the context of class solidarity across the nations that law covers,  rather than nations playing other nationalities off against each other to drive down wages and cherry pick their best talents.

We've seen where excess conservatism and excess liberalism leads us. Everything is pointing to returning to the high skill,  high wage,  high tax,  high regulation unionised social democracy and rolling that out across our realm of influence.

[Sebastian Cobb]

How do you feel about the way he dresses, are all the fibres used, the cotton, for instance, ethically sourced?  What do you think about his diet - is meat-eating acceptable for someone in his position? I'm sure there's more, I mean, I'm amazed you're not saying much about the Brexit thing, or do you agree with him there, because I'm sure there are lots lefties who don't.

What blows my tiny gourd is that you gave Starmer a chance.  You wanted Starmer, an open shill, to have a chance but you seem incredibly fastidious about this.  It's strange.

I think I've only seen him in the one blue suit. Maybe he has a closet full of them but it seems pretty crumpled and worn, just like him really.

[king_tubby]

More lies from Kieth about his holidays.

[Sebastian Cobb]

Robbie (the personality formerly known as 'Judge') Rinder gunning him for being a hypocrite on GMB as well by the looks of it.

Interview clip: https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1559074596606955522

then without Starmer around https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1559052562808160256

Not sure what order these happened in.

[Paul Calf]

The problem with "Make sure you're perfect before you criticise others" (and its counterpart "If you think you've got it bad you should be glad you don't live in the Kolkata slums) is that it's a philosophy of inaction. It's a very useful frame of mind for you to be in for people who are doing very nicely thank you and don't really want anything to change.

[idunnosomename]

Keir Starmer mentions his mum and dad

[Sebastian Cobb]

The privatisation talk must be gaining traction in spite of Starmer and Reeve's efforts because it's got Tories like John Redwood frantically spreading lies like this:

Scotland's nationalised water industry has had to stop farmers using water to grow food in Fife. This is a bad outcome. We need more water capacity and more home grown food.

https://twitter.com/johnredwood/status/1559044253388607488

The reality is for a limited period they told farmers to not extract waters from rivers. Down south you probably wouldn't want to do that anyway because the private water companies are filling them with poo.

[shoulders]

The problem with "Make sure you're perfect before you criticise others" (and its counterpart "If you think you've got it bad you should be glad you don't live in the Kolkata slums) is that it's a philosophy of inaction. It's a very useful frame of mind for you to be in for people who are doing very nicely thank you and don't really want anything to change.

Who/what is this directed at?

[Replies From View]

To quote that famous phrase again;

"Meet me in the middle" says the Unjust Man
You take a step towards him. He takes a step backwards.
"Meet me in the middle" says the Unjust Man.

He sounds a right prick and probably the reason lassos were invented.

[Replies From View]

Heh! I did say a piece of ham rather than a ham but, no, I'm not a Colin Baker fan.

Dr Seuss considers rewrite.

[thugler]

Is it OK to say that free movement of labour is a good thing between comparatively equal societies, but not in societies when there is a power imbalance?

Clearly free movement of labour caused brain drain in the ex-Eastern bloc which was primarily about suppressing wage increases  in the established West. When the iron curtain fell businesspeople weren't getting misty eyed about the end of tyranny,  they were seeing many new markets entering the economy.

The system along with Western prosperity still relies on a supply of cheap labour. Liberal remainers want that to continue, and being vocally pro-immigration and anti-racist appears to be a smokescreen for what we know to be the exploitation of poor people to our benefit and their expense.

So I feel personally conflicted about it. I would like free movement, but only in the context of class solidarity across the nations that law covers,  rather than nations playing other nationalities off against each other to drive down wages and cherry pick their best talents.

We've seen where excess conservatism and excess liberalism leads us. Everything is pointing to returning to the high skill,  high wage,  high tax,  high regulation unionised social democracy and rolling that out across our realm of influence.

Yes, this basically sums up the issue. I'm not saying it's entirely good either, but from the perspective of someone who has benefited massively from it, it's not been bad for them and it seems unwise to pretend it's been bad for all.

I'm inclined to support free movement, but you want to ensure a better standard of workers rights across the nations involved to reduce the negative consequences you describe.

I don't want to feed this but just wanted to address the Corbyn point.  I've never met or spoken to anyone whose support for Corbyn was about Corbyn specifically.  It was about the policies AND about knowing the history of the person (in this case, Corbyn but it could apply to Mick Lynch).  Knowing that their previous life indicated that the person selling the dream was not a liar or a thief.  That they understood solidarity, believed in it.  Lived by it.

Any cunt, like Starmer, can put on a suit and lie.  Seeing the difference.  Understanding that words are only part of the deal, is important.  Utterly critical really. 

I mean, look at what Keith's saying now about the energy.  Do you really believe he means any of it?

I don't expect any politician to be completely trustworthy or not to be short sighted or have perfect takes on every issue. Corbyn was a different breed to most but shouldn't be treated as an unimpeachable superhero.

I focus on policies because politicians are just a means to make them happen, most of them will only disappoint or compromise in some way, and that's unfortunately unlikely to change.

I think If you expect politicians to be as consistent, steadfast  and trustworthy as Corbyn has been, you're just going to be disappointed over and over. The whole institution is not designed to allow for people like him to get through very often.

[Buelligan]

Who treats Corbyn as an unimpeachable superhero? 

No one expects anyone to be unimpeachable - except, possibly the cunts who spend their lives finding fault with people like Corbyn and Lynch.  No. 

Neither do we want to be told that we have to accept liars and theives because that's just the way things are.  It isn't.  No one needs to work their life away, obey the laws and pay their taxes to be told lies and ruled over by a useless self-serving cunt.  That is not normal nor is it acceptable or reasonable.

[Paul Calf]

Whatever you might think about free movement of people (and I can't believe I'm having to make this point in the 21st Century) if you allow the free movement of capital and restrict the movement of people, it can never be good for the people.

[Johnny Yesno]

Whatever you might think about free movement of people (and I can't believe I'm having to make this point in the 21st Century) if you allow the free movement of capital and restrict the movement of people, it can never be good for the people.

Yes, whatever his views on the complexities of geopolitics, I'm surprised Lynch didn't make this point. It's a weird article, that, though. It just seems to grind to a halt. Almost like the author didn't have as much to work with from the interview as they'd hoped for but wrote it up anyway.

[Blumf]

I got a letter from the shadow cabinet the other day
Opened and read it, it said they were suckers

Blumf, Labour has a plan to deal with the Conservative cost of living crisis.

Many people are scared about how they'll make ends meet through the winter.

I often think about a woman I spoke to in my constituency earlier this year. She had freezing hands and purple fingers because her pension wasn't enough to pay for the heating.

People are struggling now and that is before prices go up again to record highs which would plunge millions more into fuel poverty.

It does not have to be this way.

This is a national emergency that requires strong leadership and urgent action.

With a fully funded plan to stop the energy price cap rise, freeze your bills this winter and to tackle rising energy bills for the long term, Labour will:

1. Stop energy prices rising now

Under the Tories, energy bills are going up by £1,000 this winter.

Labour would stop the energy price cap rising. We would introduce a bigger windfall tax on oil and gas producers who are making record profits from the current crisis and close the unjustifiable Tory loopholes.

Our £29 billion plan would bring inflation down, making future interest rate hikes less likely and easing the burden on households and businesses. 

We'd also tackle the scandal of higher charges for 4 million people using prepayment meters, making sure the price users pay for energy is the same as people who pay their bills monthly.

2. Insulate homes to save on bills

In addition, through Labour's Warm Homes Plan, we would lower bills for good by insulating 19 million homes across the country over the next decade.

We urged the government to implement this plan a year ago. If they had acted then, they could have insulated 2 million of the coldest homes by this winter – saving households over £1,000 every year.

3. Invest in sustainable, British energy sources

We also have a plan for securing our domestic energy supply to make sure we're protected against future shocks.

Labour would get Britain off expensive foreign gas by investing more in home grown, cleaner energy such as solar, wind, hydrogen and nuclear power. 

Blumf, Labour's fully-funded plan puts people before the windfall profits of giant oil and gas producers. A Labour government would help the country get through this crisis while building a stronger, more secure and sustainable economy. 

The Tories have no answers to the real issues facing the country and won't put people first.

Together we can ensure that Labour gives Britain the fresh start it needs. 

Thank you, 

Rachel Reeves
Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer

Hydrogen isn't an energy source. It's a methods of storage and transmission. It's production can be quite dirty.

Also not sure if it would be possible to insulate that many homes that quickly, even if the money was there, we've got a bit of a manpower shortage, apparently.

Ah well, it's better than a kick in the balls, I suppose.