news & politics:discussion

[fraybentos1]

1 hour ago, Neil said:

Sta

Rmerz very different to clegg, he can offer young people hope for everything else in their life, job/house, etc.

Explain the hope he’s providing with 

1)jobs

2)housing 

 

and please point to something real regarding housing, not that nonsense 70% figure he’s banding about 

[Guest]

Nick Clegg went back on a manifesto promise, Starmer has gone back on it before the manifesto. They aren’t alike. 

Edited May 3, 2023 by Ozanne

[steviewevie]

10 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Nick Clegg went back in a manifesto promise, Starmer has gone back on it before the manifesto. They aren’t alike. 

They were pledges, back in 2020 he said they would be in a labour manifesto. Now he says the situation has changed, which is fair enough, they really have...covid, war in europe, inflation, Truss...but he has broken those pledges which helped him win the leadership.

Edited May 3, 2023 by steviewevie

[steviewevie]

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

They were pledges, back in 2020 he said they would be in a labour manifesto. Now he says the situation has changed, which is fair enough, they really have...war in europe, inflation, Truss...but he has broken those pledges which helped him win the leadership.

But they didn’t go into a manifesto, he hasn’t gone into government with that in a manifesto and had to ditch the policy. He’s been fairly up front well before a general election and said that Labour can’t support that policy anymore.

It’s the way it should be done if you can no longer support a policy. 

[fraybentos1]

13 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Nick Clegg went back on a manifesto promise, Starmer has gone back on it before the manifesto. They aren’t alike. 

Going to say it again: you’re a moron 

[steviewevie]

 

[lost]

It wouldn't surprise me if they've looked at the problem now of people leaving the workforce and retiring early in their 50's and decided they want the next generation in debt for as long as possible.

[Guest]

Just now, lost said:

It wouldn't surprise me if they've looked at the problem now of people leaving the workforce and retiring early in their 50's and decided they want the next generation in debt for as long as possible.

I think it’s a funding thing. Education needs to be fixed massively so if they took away tuition fees then they would have to find an additional £19b which would severely hamper their ability to fix education.

Thats not to say they won’t make the system fairer, Starmer confirmed they will do that. 

[SheffJeff]

4 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

I think it’s a funding thing. Education needs to be fixed massively so if they took away tuition fees then they would have to find an additional £19b which would severely hamper their ability to fix education.

Thats not to say they won’t make the system fairer, Starmer confirmed they will do that. 

He confirmed that they will do that but as it's not in the manifesto he can ditch it at any time?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, SheffJeff said:

He confirmed that they will do that but as it's not in the manifesto he can ditch it at any time?

Yes he can, it’s a good lesson to wait for the manifesto before judging policy decisions too much. 

[lost]

Makes sense if Truss hadn't tried to make a £2bn tax cut labour would of been able to make a £19bn tax cut.

[Guest]

Labour are going to focus education spending on children it looks like from the polices they have announced so far which means sadly that they need the funding from tuition fees. This is the cost of 13 years of Tory rule. 

[Guest]

 

[hodgey123]

22 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Labour are going to focus education spending on children it looks like from the polices they have announced so far which means sadly that they need the funding from tuition fees. This is the cost of 13 years of Tory rule. 

Would this not have been known before Starmer pledged to get rid of tuition fees?

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, hodgey123 said:

Would this not have been known before Starmer pledged to get rid of tuition fees?

Potentially not to the extent things are now, given these pledges were from early 2020.

Edited May 3, 2023 by Ozanne

[lost]

The issue is clearly the people who didn't like the explanation that we needed austere spending due to the actions of the last government in 2010 probably won't like the same explanation in 2023. 

[steviewevie]

14 minutes ago, lost said:

The issue is clearly the people who didn't like the explanation that we needed austere spending due to the actions of the last government in 2010 probably won't like the same explanation in 2023. 

as far as I can tell Labour isn't promising to cut budgets.

Edited May 3, 2023 by steviewevie

[steviewevie]

..but after over a decade of public services being starved of much needed funds, no govt can turn that round quickly without bombing the economy...next govt will need to prioritize first of all..health, education, police, and all the rest. We're in a shoddy state, the economy isn't growing, and the future looks grim. Vote steviewevie.

Edited May 3, 2023 by steviewevie

[Guest]

Look at his little face. 

[lost]

44 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

as far as I can tell Labour isn't promising to cut budgets.

Doesn't matter. Hes adding validity to the argument that money can't be spent somewhere due to economic conditions. They'll argue he could simply go get that money from the rich or "greedy companies"

[steviewevie]

16 minutes ago, lost said:

Doesn't matter

oh yes it does

[lost]

8 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

oh yes it does

Great. We only had 1 year of austerity under the Tories then using your definition. Spending went up during every other year.

[steviewevie]

37 minutes ago, lost said:

Great. We only had 1 year of austerity under the Tories then using your definition. Spending went up during every other year.

Starmer isn't saying he will reduce the deficit by cutting spending and raising taxes. You can make comparisons if you like, but they're false.

[lost]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Starmer isn't saying he will reduce the deficit by cutting spending and raising taxes. You can make comparisons if you like, but they're false.

Ok you've changed your argument now. You were saying it was all about cuts. I was saying a certain section of labour supporters were kicking off about not enough money being spent in certain areas, even calling years when I said cuts were not happening " austerity years" and arguing economic conditions didn't matter it was purely ideological and the Tories could of gone and got the money from the rich. I think they will apply the same reasoning to this.