news & politics:discussion

[JoeyT]

Errr

 

[Guest]

 

[steviewevie]

9 hours ago, Ozanne said:

I think Raynor would be alright, she seems to rub Etonian’s up the wrong way for a start. 

I think unlikely after scum remark, but I'm sure she'll go for it. I think Reeves is in poll position, unless Burnham gets a seat. Anyway, Starmer isn't going anywhere for a while yet.

[mattiloy]

10 hours ago, fraybentos1 said:

What are ur views on Burnham? Seems to have shifted left a bit since his last 2 attempts and a well known face now and quite likeable.

I also believe he support PR now even tho he led the no campaign against AV I think in 2011. 

I like Burnham. He was already the soft left candidate in 2015 in fairness and I was ready to vote for him until Corbyn came to the fore. I reckon his time as Manchester mayor has probably both given him a keener sense of the prevalence of economic injustices and nudged him left, but at the same time made him more pragmatic, deal making with all the different stakeholders.

So I think he’d be great. I think we could expect to see lots of good stuff on proper pay and conditions; plenty stuff about decentralising power/funding local govt/boosting devolution; nationalising rail (maybe water); decent investment in health, lots of social housing, and certainly some more progressive taxes - possibly a wealth tax. And I’d take that all day versus the alternatives.

Edited September 30, 2021 by mattiloy

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

I like Burnham. He was already the soft left candidate in 2015 in fairness and I was ready to vote for him until Corbyn came to the fore. I reckon his time as Manchester mayor has probably both given him a keener sense of the prevalence of economic injustices and nudged him left, but at the same time made him more pragmatic, deal making with all the different stakeholders.

So I think he’d be great. I think we could expect to see lots of good stuff on proper pay and conditions; plenty stuff about decentralising power/funding local govt/boosting devolution; nationalising rail (maybe water); decent investment in health, lots of social housing, and certainly some more progressive taxes - possibly a wealth tax. And I’d take that all day versus the alternatives.

I do think he may be one of the few people that both sides of the labour party could get behind....

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

I think unlikely after scum remark, but I'm sure she'll go for it. I think Reeves is in poll position, unless Burnham gets a seat. Anyway, Starmer isn't going anywhere for a while yet.

Indeed, Starmer will at least get till the next election and maybe beyond depending on how Labour do. If the Tory majority is wiped out then he’ll have justification to stay on. 

[zero000]

1 hour ago, JoeyT said:

Errr

 

Absolutely bonkers. Whilst Labour aren’t exactly covering themselves in glory at the moment, an actual fuel crisis occurs and the Tories gain in the polls. Baffling. 

[eFestivals]

On 9/22/2021 at 5:50 PM, SwedgeAntilles said:

Some speculation that Starmer is already planning his exit and trying to lay the ground for his successor. Wouldn't surprise me, it's all gone pear-shaped for him.

there is no sucessor. if its not starmer, is not a labour govt??!!

[zero000]

48 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

 

I’m skeptical of the mental health support in one month idea. That’s going to take a lot of resource and money to meet that target. In principle a great idea, but the investment needed would be enormous. 
 

 

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, zero000 said:

I’m skeptical of the mental health support in one month idea.
 

youre right to be skeptical, he didn't promise suitable treatment just an appointment.

[steviewevie]

1 hour ago, zero000 said:

I’m skeptical of the mental health support in one month idea. That’s going to take a lot of resource and money to meet that target. In principle a great idea, but the investment needed would be enormous. 
 

 

this is the problem with announcing policies...they get pulled apart.

[Haan]

2 hours ago, Ozanne said:

 

 Mental health stuff is good, the GND stuff is decent (will probably need even more investment than promised as the years go on) but I really hate the narrative on crime, I don't think dealing with criminals differently after they have committed crimes really helps reducing crime as apposed to dealing with the root causes (poverty in most cases, school exclusions, community support) BUT the electorate really loves ppl being tough on crime so its whatever. Just the evidence rarely shows that it helps 

[steviewevie]

6 minutes ago, Haan said:

 Mental health stuff is good, the GND stuff is decent (will probably need even more investment than promised as the years go on) but I really hate the narrative on crime, I don't think dealing with criminals differently after they have committed crimes really helps reducing crime as apposed to dealing with the root causes (poverty in most cases, school exclusions, community support) BUT the electorate really loves ppl being tough on crime so its whatever. Just the evidence rarely shows that it helps 

yeah, it's just to try and win votes, not about doing the right thing.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, zero000 said:

I’m skeptical of the mental health support in one month idea. That’s going to take a lot of resource and money to meet that target. In principle a great idea, but the investment needed would be enormous. 
 

 

I think the idea is that it would be covered through increased taxes on the wealthy but I’m not 100% sure on that.

11 minutes ago, Haan said:

 Mental health stuff is good, the GND stuff is decent (will probably need even more investment than promised as the years go on) but I really hate the narrative on crime, I don't think dealing with criminals differently after they have committed crimes really helps reducing crime as apposed to dealing with the root causes (poverty in most cases, school exclusions, community support) BUT the electorate really loves ppl being tough on crime so its whatever. Just the evidence rarely shows that it helps 

You’ve got the nail on the head, the electorate loves people being tough on crime so with Starmers history as DPP he’s doubling down on that, it’s his home terf essentially. 

[topmarksbri]

13 hours ago, mattiloy said:

Lets be honest we’re just all ready to fast forward and feel the Burn aren’t we?

Was chatting to girlfriend about this last night, feels inevitable with Starmer playing the Kinnock role. He’s shifted the internal party Overton window so Burnham will be more palatable to the left that rejected him in 15.

[steviewevie]

17 minutes ago, topmarksbri said:

Was chatting to girlfriend about this last night, feels inevitable with Starmer playing the Kinnock role. He’s shifted the internal party Overton window so Burnham will be more palatable to the left that rejected him in 15.

or Reeves.

[Guest]

Thread:

 

[Gingerfish79]

4 hours ago, zero000 said:

I’m skeptical of the mental health support in one month idea. That’s going to take a lot of resource and money to meet that target. In principle a great idea, but the investment needed would be enormous. 
 

 

You're right, it would require huge levels of investment and could take years to achieve as there simply aren't enough trained professionals. Earlier this year it took 2 months for me to get an initial assessment and then a further 2 months waiting on a short-list for a first counselling session. I can't fault the counselling once it began, absolutely brilliant. But the fact remains that I really needed it at least three months earlier.

I would also note that none of those 'policies' have been costed. Labour need to show how they can fund these things before the general voting public will believe them to be possible. It's unfair that the Tory's don't get scrutinised in the same way, but that's the way it is .

[steviewevie]

 

[Guest]

 

[steviewevie]

1 hour ago, Gingerfish79 said:

You're right, it would require huge levels of investment and could take years to achieve as there simply aren't enough trained professionals. Earlier this year it took 2 months for me to get an initial assessment and then a further 2 months waiting on a short-list for a first counselling session. I can't fault the counselling once it began, absolutely brilliant. But the fact remains that I really needed it at least three months earlier.

I would also note that none of those 'policies' have been costed. Labour need to show how they can fund these things before the general voting public will believe them to be possible. It's unfair that the Tory's don't get scrutinised in the same way, but that's the way it is .

yeah, had similar issues getting help for my kid in the past, takes months.

[SwedgeAntilles]

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

there is no sucessor. if its not starmer, is not a labour govt??!!

It's definitely not a Labour government then. As I told you before, the only way Labour gets back into power is power-sharing. Elect a leader who will form a government with the Greens and the SNP and you'll keep the Tories out.

[Ryan1984]

 

[Guest]

 

[steviewevie]

9 hours ago, SwedgeAntilles said:

It's definitely not a Labour government then. As I told you before, the only way Labour gets back into power is power-sharing. Elect a leader who will form a government with the Greens and the SNP and you'll keep the Tories out.

Would that be enough? You'd need lib Dems too probably, and plaid. And surely any deal with SNP would probably have to include an independence referendum, which might complicate things a bit!

Edited October 1, 2021 by steviewevie