The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[Demitri_C]

In my opinion labour should legalise safe "marijuana" and tax people if they want more money to help with the two child cap. Even if they do it to 3 would help alot of people. 

Might as well tax the people, they going to smoke anyway might as well make money on it to help pay for things

[ml1dch]

10 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

In my opinion labour should legalise safe "marijuana" and tax people if they want more money to help with the two child cap. Even if they do it to 3 would help alot of people. 

While I completely agree, it feels like it would be a pretty incoherent policy to run alongside the "let's stick with the last guy's stupid idea to ban smoking" policy that they're going with. 

[ml1dch]

4 hours ago, blandy said:

Yep. King's speech. Voting against your own government's manifesto (as contained within the King's speech votes ) is basically automatically lose the whip.

I'm pretty sure they all voted for the full-fat, Starmer-and-Reeves-approved text of the unamended bill, didn't they?

Still seems daft to launch yourself head-first at the enemy guns given the thing they want is obviously coming down the tracks soon enough, but having the whip suspended for this is still pretty much unprecedented. And silly.

[chrisp65]

Petrol duty hasn’t risen in years. If we’re looking for clunking comparisons and hypothecation, a 10% rise in fuel duty would more than pay for removing the cap, or persuade more people away from deadly diesel.

It’s not as simple as ‘there is no money’. That’s the con delivered by people like Reeves that want punters to think the world’s 4th largest economy is run like your mum ran the household budget in the 1960’s. 

[sidcow]

4 hours ago, blandy said:

Yep. King's speech. Voting against your own government's manifesto (as contained within the King's speech votes ) is basically automatically lose the whip.

He also had to do it for more parochial reasons of party control and discipline. The few (7?) who voted against it (and most of them are nice but dim) knew what would happen, but did it anyway.

Yes, it's a lose lose situation. He's getting pelters for being a hard ruthless bastard. 

If he'd let them off there would be a torrent of criticism calling him weak, not in control of his party, pathetic leader.

Undoubtedly the latter would be the worst look for a brand new Prime Minister. 

[chrisp65]

I’m not convinced he’s getting negative publicity. A lot of the screamers on the performative left are doing their thing, he’s not bothered, which reinforces the character he’s settled on for the huge centrist middle. I’d expect to see a YouGov at some time soon where his approval rating has risen.

[Demitri_C]

23 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

While I completely agree, it feels like it would be a pretty incoherent policy to run alongside the "let's stick with the last guy's stupid idea to ban smoking" policy that they're going with. 

Just trying to think of ways that doesnt effect everyone but brings revenue in. This way you are not banning it you are making money off it. I was reading that khans planning a drive tax for anyone that has removed grass from their drive thats gonna bring in money

Sorry to break you the bad news but im sure i read labour were going to revisit that about the smoking as they are in favour of it.

 

[Demitri_C]

8 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Yes, it's a lose lose situation. He's getting pelters for being a hard ruthless bastard. 

If he'd let them off there would be a torrent of criticism calling him weak, not in control of his party, pathetic leader.

Undoubtedly the latter would be the worst look for a brand new Prime Minister. 

Welcome to being PM! No matter what you decide you are going to upset someone.

3 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I’m not convinced he’s getting negative publicity. A lot of the screamers on the performative left are doing their thing, he’s not bothered, which reinforces the character he’s settled on for the huge centrist middle. I’d expect to see a YouGov at some time soon where his approval rating has risen.

There is always a bounce when a new PM comes in. Its nothing unusual. 

Putting petrol up 10% would be madness. The drivers have suffered enough and thats just clobbering the poor with more expense

[ml1dch]

4 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Sorry to break you the bad news but im sure i read labour were going to revisit that about the smoking as they are in favour of it.

Don't worry, you're not breaking any news. They're keeping the smoking ban, which is exactly why I posted what I posted. 

[Demitri_C]

Just now, ml1dch said:

Don't worry, you're not breaking any news. They're keeping the smoking ban, which is exactly why I posted what I posted. 

Lets see if they go through with it. I think they will lose a lot of voters if they go ahead with it

[chrisp65]

Petrol and diesel are literally killing us, remove the 10% tax cut and return tax on fuel to 2021 levels.

I see the way people drive and the vehicles they choose, there are a few of them that can afford that extra 5p a litre.

[LondonLax]

4 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Petrol and diesel are literally killing us, remove the 10% tax cut and return tax on fuel to 2021 levels.

I see the way people drive and the vehicles they choose, there are a few of them that can afford that extra 5p a litre.

It’s not just car drivers, it’s also lorry drivers delivering goods and services etc. The 2020 fuel price rise was one of the drivers of overall inflation.

[chrisp65]

1 minute ago, LondonLax said:

It’s not just car drivers, it’s also lorry drivers delivering goods and services etc. The 2020 fuel price rise was one of the drivers of overall inflation.

Yep, all that shit from SHEIN going up n down the motorway.

Our current trajectory from the two ‘big’ parties is managed decline. We need change.

[Davkaus]

I'm not a frequent smoker (maybe 1-2 cigars a year), but I find the idea of a 35 year old being denied something available to a 36 year old a bit of a disgrace.

I'd rather see a total ban than a rolling age threshold, because what this looks like is the older generations securing the freedom to make bad decisions for themselves while locking it away from the young in perpetuity.

[sidcow]

19 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Yep, all that shit from SHEIN going up n down the motorway.

Our current trajectory from the two ‘big’ parties is managed decline. We need change.

What sort of third Party do you see coming about that's going to change things the way you want them to be changed? 

[chrisp65]

15 minutes ago, sidcow said:

What sort of third Party do you see coming about that's going to change things the way you want them to be changed? 

Hmmm, I don’t see a party coming about any time soon. Which currently leaves us vulnerable to the populists and british nationalists and the knee jerk protest parties.

What I’d like to see is a republic that takes defence seriously, by becoming more self sufficient in food and less dependent on energy. I’d educate us away from the race for GDP growth at lethal cost. Use a different metric than the current GDP. I’d build so many factory built properly insulated homes it would crash the property and rental rackets and end involuntary homelessness. I’d have a raft of renewable energy sources, I’d insulate, tax sugar, introduce charge per mile road use, stop subsidising air travel, tax air BnB until it was no longer viable. I’d make sure everybody has to learn the language, no more ghettoisation and lack of integration. I’d allow england’s independence and relieve it of the drag on its resources of caring for its near neighbours. I’d apply to join the Oceania World Cup qualifying group cos I’m bored of playing Belgium and Turkey. I’d stop the theft by the crown estate. More money for the arts because it earns money and projects soft power. Rename the Severn bridge. No clear policy on golf courses but there’s a good chance I’m against them. We need somewhere nice for all those new houses. I’d include in the military defence budget the cost of rehabilitating broken service personnel, not leave it to charities to pick up the pieces. Nudge people towards vegetarianism. That sort of thing.

[magnkarl]

16 hours ago, bickster said:

You can't be serious. I'm fairly confident elements of the Tory Party have suggested this numerous times. Those elements are pretty much always on the right of the party and complete wingnuts

Work will set you free. It's 99% of the way there

I don't think we should force people to do it, I'm saying that we should make serving the community and country an actual great choice for people who struggle with getting a job. It's being done really well in other social democratic nations (Denmark, Switzerland, Iceland), and isn't as dark blue as you may think. The civil defense programmes in Switzerland gives everyone a run for their money and usually lands young people a job right out of their service.

Improve the living conditions and wage of being in the armed forces and it would likely become more palpable again, invest in people to be helping the elderly, ill and so on in their community and make the wage reach a point where it outshines unemployment rates and I'm sure we could at least partially emulate the areas where this works.

In Norway they pay the wage of people who are unemployed if they go work for a company as an intern or trial run, and in order to receive unemployment the unemployed needs to apply to X amount of jobs per month, as well as at least try the jobs the state finds for you. Is Norway Nazi Germany?

Edited July 25 by magnkarl

[ml1dch]

9 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Lets see if they go through with it. I think they will lose a lot of voters if they go ahead with it

They won't lose a lot of votes over it for three reasons.

Firstly because it's not the sort of policy that sways votes one way or the other. I think that it's a petty, illiberal, stupid policy which has been badly planned and will be impractical to ever implement. But if they go and fix the important stuff, they can have their smoking nonsense. If they screw up the important stuff even more than the last lot (which would probably be impossible) then that is what will lose support, not the smoking stuff.

Secondly, nobody will notice. If you're fiercely opposed to it and you're voting in 2028, your life won't have changed because there are now some 19 year olds who can't buy cigarettes. And you'll have found something more important to be angry about since 2025 when you were last angry about this. 

Thirdly, it's ridiculously popular. Between 70-80% of people support it, across all parties. Because on the whole we're a country that loves banning other people from doing stuff.

[sidcow]

6 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Because on the whole we're a country that loves banning other people from doing stuff.

That's total bollox, I don't think you should be allowed to say that. 

[markavfc40]

On 24/07/2024 at 08:25, Demitri_C said:

Have they got no money though? Is this the excuse and free pass starmers gonna get in next  5 years then? I do remember very well when Cameron took over and he got left the note from labour "that there is no money" and it was deemed a funny joke on here by certian posters. Na not for me im not given the tories a free pass because the previous government failed. They failed because they were shit. Labour are the government they have inherited a mess...

 

The Tories inherited utopia in 2010 in comparison to what Labour have been left with.

The Tories hid behind the no money line to inflict austerity on the nation and to enact ideological cuts. The result of which saw NHS waiting lists go from 2.3 million in 2010 to over 7.5 million now (they had doubled pre pandemic in 2019 to 4.6 million). In 2010 you were guaranteed a GP appointment within 48 hours. In July 2010 the Tories scrapped that guarantee and 30% of people now wait over 8 days for a GP appointment. You had a heart attack in 2010 you would wait on average 18 minutes for an ambulance. It is now 45 minutes. Cancer wait times are now the worst on record and have gotten progressively worse over the last 14 years. You work in the NHS so you'll know we could go on all day about the things that have gotten worse within the NHS since 2010 as the list is endless. 

There are 4.4 million children living in relative poverty in UK in 2024 an increase of almost a million since 2010. The number of people in working households who are living below the poverty line is 1.5 million higher than it was in 2010.There has been an 80% increase in homelessness since 2010. 

In 2010 net migration was 252000. Last year it was 685000.

Local councils are going bankrupt, schools are in disrepair, social care has been decimated, roads are in dire condition etc,etc,etc. 

Whilst doing all of the above the Tories wasted/siphoned off an absolute fortune and oversaw zero growth due in the main to Brexit. National debt was 900 billion pound in 2010. It had doubled pre pandemic to 1.8 trillion. It is at over 2.4 trillion pound now. Debt as a percentage of GDP was 64% in 2010, it is now at 97%. The no money line wasn't true in 2010. It very much is now though.

Comparing now to 2010 is like comparing chalk with cheese. They simply don't compare. The Tories have left behind a broken country and a shit load of debt. There will be no quick fixes. It will take a decade or more for Labour to get back the country back to anything like where it was in 2010.