Jump to content

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


Demitri_C

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Wainy316 said:

The Tories are about to present Labour with a few open goals that I'm sure they will respond to in their usual manner...

Yes, Starmer has already said they are opposed to the NI increase to pay for social care, but that they won't be suggesting what they would do until they write their manifesto. So once again Labour is defined by what they are not, rather than what they stand for. IMHO they will lose any upcoming argument on social care, firstly Bozza is doing something that Labour should be doing, putting up taxes much to the irk of tory voters, but also removing the pension triple lock, ensuring OAPs do actually lose out, along with younger working age folks in order to cover the social care package bill. Tory win, on an issue Labour should naturally be leading on. 

Edit - Labour's line is yes to putting up taxes but just not saying which ones. They'll be taken down with that by any and every Tory they criticise.

Edited by Jareth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Yes, Starmer has already said they are opposed to the NI increase to pay for social care, but that they won't be suggesting what they would do until they write their manifesto. So once again Labour is defined by what they are not, rather than what they stand for. IMHO they will lose any upcoming argument on social care, firstly Bozza is doing something that Labour should be doing, putting up taxes much to the irk of tory voters, but also removing the pension triple lock, ensuring OAPs do actually lose out, along with younger working age folks in order to cover the social care package bill. Tory win, on an issue Labour should naturally be leading on. 

Labour should be increasing taxes that disproportionately affect the young AND removing the triple lock on state pensions that actually gives many of our older people some sort of security in later life?

Really? Thats what you think Labour should be saying? And you think that will get them elected? 

I can just see the slogan now, Taxes up and F*** your pension!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bickster said:

Labour should be increasing taxes that disproportionately affect the young AND removing the triple lock on state pensions that actually gives many of our older people some sort of security in later life?

Really? Thats what you think Labour should be saying? And you think that will get them elected? 

 

Nope, Labour should be putting up taxes to pay for social care. They agree but won't say which ones. So in the meantime, a NI rise, along with removal of the triple lock, and now apparantly there will be a tax on share dividends too - is maybe not the epitome of fairness, but it'll be accepted and meanwhile Labour's position is? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bickster said:

That's what you just said

Seriously?

"IMHO they will lose any upcoming argument on social care, firstly Bozza is doing something that Labour should be doing, putting up taxes much to the irk of tory voters"

Now what's Labour's position again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In response to Starmer, Johnson accuses Labour of having no plan of its own. He says it is “deeply irresponsible” of Starmer to come to the Commons without his own proposals."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2021/sep/07/boris-johnson-national-insurance-ni-tax-rise-covid-coronavirus-nhs-live-news-updates

Whatever your political persuasion, to dodge committing to any plan whatsoever until manifesto time is such poor opposition. Starmer will get to manifesto time and be known as the guy who hasn't got an opinion, who's suddenly found one. It'll be too late.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jareth said:

Yes, Starmer has already said they are opposed to the NI increase to pay for social care, but that they won't be suggesting what they would do until they write their manifesto. So once again Labour is defined by what they are not, rather than what they stand for.

I agree with the point I think you're making here, ie Starmer blunts the impact of any criticism he makes on this topic by his obvious cowardice in criticising the Tory plan without having a Labour one even outlined in broad terms. As usual, Starmer is playing defence - by not saying what he favours, he is harder to attack, but it not having a clear criticism, his own attacks will be weaker. The upshot is that as usual, all the meaningful debate will happen in the media through different parts of the Tory party attacking each other, which means that all of the debate will be held with Tory principles as the baseline.

Nevertheless, I want to challenge this slightly:

1 hour ago, Jareth said:

Bozza is doing something that Labour should be doing, putting up taxes much to the irk of tory voters, but also removing the pension triple lock, ensuring OAPs do actually lose out, along with younger working age folks in order to cover the social care package bill.

Firstly, as the second part of that sentence suggests, the issue is which taxes Johnson wants to increase. NI is reasonably progressive, as taxes go (not for the ultra-rich though), but an NI increase will naturally a] be an initial transfer from working people to the current crop of retired-but-not-yet-needing-care, and b] will represent a fiscal transfer away from the north to the south. Since social care is fundamentally a question of wealth and inheritance, a wealth tax and a re-configured inheritance tax would be the better way to fund it. We should avoid giving Johnson any credit here, and Labour should not be copying or signing on to the Tory policy (and beware rightists like Reeves and Kendall doing their 'we need a bipartisan compromise policy' schtick).

Secondly, the government are not 'removing' the triple lock; they are proposing to suspend the rules of the increase for one year while it would produce an anomolously large increase. But we need to remember that the people who benefit most from the triple lock are young people, not the elderly. Seeing increased pension spending as an unfair transfer to the elderly from the young is a conceptual mistake; we don't want the elderly to 'lose out' in this way.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Nevertheless, I want to challenge this slightly:

Firstly, as the second part of that sentence suggests, the issue is which taxes Johnson wants to increase. NI is reasonably progressive, as taxes go (not for the ultra-rich though), but an NI increase will naturally a] be an initial transfer from working people to the current crop of retired-but-not-yet-needing-care, and b] will represent a fiscal transfer away from the north to the south. Since social care is fundamentally a question of wealth and inheritance, a wealth tax and a re-configured inheritance tax would be the better way to fund it. We should avoid giving Johnson any credit here, and Labour should not be copying or signing on to the Tory policy (and beware rightists like Reeves and Kendall doing their 'we need a bipartisan compromise policy' schtick).

Secondly, the government are not 'removing' the triple lock; they are proposing to suspend the rules of the increase for one year while it would produce an anomolously large increase. But we need to remember that the people who benefit most from the triple lock are young people, not the elderly. Seeing increased pension spending as an unfair transfer to the elderly from the young is a conceptual mistake; we don't want the elderly to 'lose out' in this way.

Poorly structured sentence, my bad, I agree with all that. On the triple lock, looks the right move to me, given the circumstances this year - not a comment on it going forwards though.

I'd like the wealthy to pay more across the board, which is why I voted Labour last time out - they had lots of policies (but policies they had!) - current Labour also 'hint' at this, but refuse to 'commit' to it. Meanwhile the tories have addressed a long time sore and can defend their position quite easily against opposition attack lines - I think Starmer said the tories cannot claim to be the party of low taxes anymore. They literally today are not claiming to be that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

but an NI increase will naturally a] be an initial transfer from working people to the current crop of retired-but-not-yet-needing-care, and b] will represent a fiscal transfer away from the north to the south.

How so? I’m not seeing that. How does me paying more tax transfer to healthy pensioners? This tax increase is for Social care and NHS. Also how does my tax increase (I’m in t’north) transfer to that there shandyland?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, blandy said:

How so? I’m not seeing that. How does me paying more tax transfer to healthy pensioners? This tax increase is for Social care and NHS.

Well, I guess I'm meaning that many of the people who are *already needing care* are either not going to be around to see the benefit of a new system - or even just the effects of new funding - or have already made decisions around eg selling property or other assets to pay for care that this funding increase is supposed to avoid. Of course, there will be plenty of others for whom neither of things are true, and then yes they will see a benefit. However, the group who will have the maximum benefit are those who have stopped working - and therefore don't pay NI - but have not yet needed to make use of the care system or sell assets.

27 minutes ago, blandy said:

Also how does my tax increase (I’m in t’north) transfer to that there shandyland?

In that the policy is being fairly explicitly promoted as an inheritance preservation scheme, so the benefits accrue proportionally to those areas in which people have the most valuable estates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Labour being useless opposition again. The headline from them is that these tax increases are only a sticking plaster for the broken system… does that mean we should be grateful it’s only 1.25%? I think for a lot of people that will be what they take away from that. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Genie said:

Labour being useless opposition again. The headline from them is that these tax increases are only a sticking plaster for the broken system… does that mean we should be grateful it’s only 1.25%? I think for a lot of people that will be what they take away from that. 

Labour don't write the headlines. What Starmer said was that the system was broken by years of underfunding by the Tory Government and thats after catching a brief10 sec clip on a BBC new bulletin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, bickster said:

Labour don't write the headlines. What Starmer said was that the system was broken by years of underfunding by the Tory Government and thats after catching a brief10 sec clip on a BBC new bulletin

Twice on the radio I’ve heard the same line which sounds along the lines of “it doesn’t go far enough” which plays into Boris’s hands when people start to get upset about the tax.

Its not ideal but could be worse, thanks Boris. CON +5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Genie said:

Twice on the radio I’ve heard the same line which sounds along the lines of “it doesn’t go far enough” which plays into Boris’s hands when people start to get upset about the tax.

Its not ideal but could be worse, thanks Boris. CON +5

He's saying the funding doesn't go far enough not the tax rise

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Genie said:

Yeah, but it’s always spun in a favourable way for the Tories. Labour need to be better at grabbing the headlines 

How do you propose they do that when the press will do exactly what you have percieved to have happened today?

Maybe he should say nothing, that was going really well for him by all accounts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, bickster said:

How do you propose they do that when the press will do exactly what you have percieved to have happened today?

Maybe he should say nothing, that was going really well for him by all accounts

There’s a thousand things he could have said and had a better impact than what he did. “It’s a sticking plaster” is completely the wrong angle.

He needed to ram the manifesto pledges of no tax rises down his throat. That Boris stood in front of a big red bus saying that the NHS was going to be rolling in money post Brexit.

How about saying they should be going after major tax dodging corporations to fill the void instead of the general public?

Yes, the NHS needs more funding but if Starmer wants to gain ground he needs to attack Boris the serial liar who can’t be trusted.

If Starmer / Labour fail to capitalise on Conservative bringing in the biggest tax hike since the war AFTER they pledged not to do it then they need to be closed down.

Edited by Genie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Genie said:

Labour being useless opposition again. The headline from them is that these tax increases are only a sticking plaster for the broken system… does that mean we should be grateful it’s only 1.25%? I think for a lot of people that will be what they take away from that. 

I think the 'sticking plaster' line was shit, and they were casting around for something yesterday. I've just listened to Radio 5 and Rachel Reeves was on, she had a new line about how 'those with the broadest shoulders' aren't paying (she honestly said it about 15 times, I'm not exaggerating) which is at least mostly true.

However - in 2019 Labour went into the election promising a comprehensive 'National Care Service' which would provide a much more comprehensive solution 'working in partnership with the NHS'. The plan included a lifetime cap on care costs, as proposed by the Tories. At no point either yesterday or today has anyone from the Labour party used the phrase 'National Care Service', presumably because they don't want to be 'tainted' with using the language of Corbyn's time. But it's not that nobody used the phrase yesterday - oh no, Nicola Sturgeon gleefully seized the ball and tapped it home, promising a 'National Care Service for Scotland', the consultation for which began a month ago.

It is very difficult for Labour to win a General Election without winning lots of Scottish seats, but on this huge, emotive issue they are once again offering to Scottish voters the double proposition of 1) we will keep you in the United Kingdom, and 2) we will offer you a less comprehensive health and social care package than the SNP. I don't think that double header is winning back many Scottish seats to be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Genie said:

He needed to ram the manifesto pledges of no tax rises down his throat.

He can't do that, it would be stored up and used against him at a future point when Labour might have to do similar. Also it would align him with Tory backbenchers and right wing nutjobs (see below) :mrgreen:

The £350 mil a week line, yes I agree but that would put him in the same bracket as Nick Ferrari (who used that line earlier today)

Today he went for the 11 years of Tory Government underfunding the NHS line and pointed out that the proposals won't go far enough. I think that's perfectly valid criticism

I also think if he'd said what he said today at some point before Xmas, people woun't have criticised it so much. Because the left of the party have been constantly feeding the narrative that he's doing nothing and saying nothing, its given the press a free run at him from the other side and it also leads to people having the critical mindset when it comes to Starmer and commenting negatively about anything he says

Here's the not left wing Sky News Headline

Quote

PMQs: Starmer says Johnson's National Insurance hike for social care reform will see care workers receive tax rise but no pay increase

Here's the Guardian

Quote

Starmer lambasts Johnson for breaking manifesto pledges on social care

For shits and giggles here's the Heil

Quote

Revealed: Sir Keir Starmer's lowly-paid sister works 12-hour shifts on minimum wage for as little as £9.70 looking after the elderly at a Kent care home

And the new Socialist Worker monthly indepth Marxist magazine The Spectator yesterday went with

Quote

When will the real Keir Starmer stand up?

The paper of choice of the angry tramps, The Torygraph went with this yesterday

Quote

Sir Keir Starmer calls for wealth tax to fund social care

Meanwhile in Bongo's Bingoland The Canary as usual was singing the wrong f***ing song three days ago (and yes three days ago, this was THE topic of conversation)

Quote

Labour’s treatment of the PSC sums up the shift under Keir Starmer

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â