How embarrassing for Starmer

[64]

” “I hope he wins the by-election and he’ll play a big part in the Labour government.” .What a slime Starmer is, not one person believes this nonsense and it’s embarrassing he thinks he can get away with saying it

[Siderite]

The current government is Starmer’s, not Burnham’s. No matter how bad Starmer is as PM, he has no obligation to act as if Burnham should just be able to walk into number 10. What is slimy and opportunistic is asking around for an MP to stand down to make way for a by-election that wasn’t necessary, but for the ambition of one person and making sounds about his own government decisions while not being PM. This is more Machiavellian than Starmer with Corbyn.

Some might say this is politics and ambition, but it’s not afforded tk those with the ‘wrong’ vibes.

1 user thanked author for this post.

alcazar

[64]

My point being that Starmer tried to stand in Burnham’s way then says this .It was a matter of public record that he did that.
Politicians twist and slide but this after the block was so publicly put on a few weeks ago is taking the public for fools

1 user thanked author for this post.

alcazar

[Northumbiron]

“ This is more Machiavellian than Starmer with Corbyn”

Sooner have “The Prince” at No 10 than Farage.

[Siderite]

Iron-awe wrote:

Could get more embarrassing for Starmer now as Burnham wins Makerfield by 9000 votes with a 55% share of the votes cast, whatever your views on Burnham he is a very popular figure as opposed to his leader in Number 10.

Andy Burnham’s favourability rating is currently -11 with Yougov, declining and will likely decline further if he becomes PM and reality bites. That rating is higher than Starmer, but I have no faith that he would govern much better. His political games, all for himself, are partly why people are jaded with Labour and Conservative politicians and his ideas are weak and he’s already been u turning on statements.

1 user thanked author for this post.

alcazar

[Deereyme66]

If he becomes leader and keeps Reform out, he’ll do for me and many. Starmer’s been cooked a long time ago and a new leader at least raises hope of keeping the wolves at bay.

[Siderite]

I think Labour are cooked regardless. The problems facing the country are too deep and we are very divided. I can’t see Burnham being able to address them and his talk and actions fill me with little hope. The saving grave from Reform may be a Reform-Restore split.

[Deereyme66]

Don’t agree. Particularly with Restore taking votes from Reform and in a few years possibly Tories making a slight comeback, Labour are anything but cooked.

[Northumbiron]

If Labour are cooked then the country is f…….!

[Siderite]

Deereyme66 wrote:

Don’t agree. Particularly with Restore taking votes from Reform and in a few years possibly Tories making a slight comeback, Labour are anything but cooked.

Yeah, which is why I added the last sentence. However, the country has serious problems with growth a feeling things are deteriorating, with slow increases in living conditions and everything costing more. This, coupled with things like social media polarisation and scapegoating has created a divided and unhappy nation, where there is no popular decision or willing to confront or accept tough decisions.

We have a lot of money spent on the triple lock pension and winter fuel allowance, with an elderly population, and this harms growth. These policies are OK from the principle, but there is a lack of understanding of the consequences in the current environment. Starmer tried to address this, and admittedly set the barrier too low and was forced into an embarrassing u turn, but he at least saw a core problem people weren’t willing to confront. People are disheartened by the economic slowdown, but also don’t like the hard decisions that may be needed to find money to address this. Young people want to have better access to housing, but new housing gets vetoed due to bureaucracy over small things, people want benefits cut, but the largest benefits are pensions, WFA etc. Yet going after that was met with outrage. Brexit has hamstrung the nation and every PM since has soon fallen foul because the decisions needed to be made are unpopular with our economic environment. Starmer has suffered with all of this, alongside his poor charisma, baffling decisions and a hostile press. I don’t see Burnham, or many other MPs, willing to tackle this and the same pattern will repeat, as it has done for every PM since 2016. He already tried to cater for the WASPIs with their unreasonable demands, only to u turn when it was realised how unfeasible this is. None of that, and other arguments made by him, make me think this is a man who can confront the tough decisions and will likely go down a route that may sound good in vibe from the outset among his supporters, but will soon face the reality of the state of the country. As it did with Starmer, and his u turns, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak.

[alcazar]

64 wrote:

” “I hope he wins the by-election and he’ll play a big part in the Labour government.” .What a slime Starmer is, not one person believes this nonsense and it’s embarrassing he thinks he can get away with saying it

Somewhere on a level with trying to get us to believe the three Ukrainian rent boys were sent by Putin.
😂😂😂

[alcazar]

“people want benefits cut, but the largest benefits are pensions,”

Errrr, pensions are NOT “benefits” despite what slimy politicians call them.
We pay into them weekly, exactly as much as they calculate they need.
If the politicians then take that money, add it to the general pot, then spend/squander it on anything BUT pensions, is no-one’s fault but theirs.

[Siderite]

You don’t pay into any pot for the state pension. The government tracks your national insurance, works out how much you should get from work history and the money comes from taxpayers. It is a benefit and I am not using that term as a pejorative. The only pot for a pension you get is private.

And I can very much believe Russians targeted Starmer given the Russians have targeted other European countries in similar plots, including the UK with Salisbury. It’s very much their MO.

[alcazar]

Siderite wrote:

You don’t pay into any pot for the state pension. The government tracks your national insurance, works out how much you should get from work history and the money comes from taxpayers. It is a benefit and I am not using that term as a pejorative. The only pot for a pension you get is private.

And I can very much believe Russians targeted Starmer given the Russians have targeted other European countries in similar plots, including the UK with Salisbury. It’s very much their MO.

Oh dear.
So near, yet so far.

[alcazar]

Looks like he’s going, then?
Good riddance.
Still needs to answer for Saville and the rape gangs. 😡😡😡

[Siderite]

alcazar wrote:

Siderite wrote:

You don’t pay into any pot for the state pension. The government tracks your national insurance, works out how much you should get from work history and the money comes from taxpayers. It is a benefit and I am not using that term as a pejorative. The only pot for a pension you get is private.

And I can very much believe Russians targeted Starmer given the Russians have targeted other European countries in similar plots, including the UK with Salisbury. It’s very much their MO.

Oh dear.
So near, yet so far.

The money taken for the state pension from the government is to fund current pensioners, not for some magic pot to fund you later. This isn’t an opinion, but fact.

[Siderite]

alcazar wrote:

Looks like he’s going, then?

I hope we get a leadership challenge and it isn’t just a coronation for Andy. For one, it would be a way to test him in a leadership electoral system. Rayner and Streeting have shown interest, so could run.

Out of that lot, I am currently leaning Rayner, but not enthralled by any and think thd problems in the country are too deep, with a system not favourable for any PM.

Though, I don’t think Starmer, for his many weaknesses needs to account fir handling of grooming gangs while at the CPS. Prosecutors have attested to his willingness to deal with the culprits.

[alcazar]

Then why haven’t they been dealt with?
Why was Saville not dealt with?
If it sounds like excuses, and smells like excuses, it’s probably excuses.

[alcazar]

“The money taken for the state pension from the government is to fund current pensioners, not for some magic pot to fund you later. This isn’t an opinion, but fact.”

But it was originally to fund those needing a pension in the future, until used for other things by greedy politicians.

Government are a bit like someone putting money away for a serious operation depending it on a car instead then whining they can’t afford the operation but have to have it.
And that’s ALL governments before someone plays the strawman card.

[Siderite]

The state pension fund has never been about taking money away for future use. The money taken away through taxes has always been to fund current pensioners. The money they took from you or anyone 20, 30, 40 years ago was to fund the retirees of then, not for you. The amount you get is based off your NI to see how much you’re entitled to, but the money comes from today’s taxes, not from some stored pot anyone paid into.

[64]

The overwhelming number of people on benefits are these with in work benefits,The government subsidising low paying bosses

[alcazar]

Siderite wrote:

The state pension fund has never been about taking money away for future use. The money taken away through taxes has always been to fund current pensioners. The money they took from you or anyone 20, 30, 40 years ago was to fund the retirees of then, not for you. The amount you get is based off your NI to see how much you’re entitled to, but the money comes from today’s taxes, not from some stored pot anyone paid into.

But that was the idea.
Pot of money, stored, invested.
But they couldn’t resist spending it.
Now they whine.
Look it up.

[alcazar]

64 wrote:

The overwhelming number of people on benefits are these with in work benefits,The government subsidising low paying bosses

The ones that get to me are the double dippers.
Take retirement, or redundancy, then straight back to work, banking the payout.
No wonder we have a problem with youth unemployment.

[Deereyme66]

Is there evidence that this is a major factor in youth unemployment? Surely not?

[Siderite]

alcazar wrote:

Siderite wrote:

The state pension fund has never been about taking money away for future use. The money taken away through taxes has always been to fund current pensioners. The money they took from you or anyone 20, 30, 40 years ago was to fund the retirees of then, not for you. The amount you get is based off your NI to see how much you’re entitled to, but the money comes from today’s taxes, not from some stored pot anyone paid into.

But that was the idea.
Pot of money, stored, invested.
But they couldn’t resist spending it.
Now they whine.
Look it up.

It hasn’t worked that way, so my original point stands. The state pension is something the current workers pay for and will be a contribution to lack of growth in our stagnant economy. It’s a challenge for our governments that they haven’t faced and this belief about pension pots paid into over time funding the state pension makes it harder for the government to find solutions because no-one will be happy.

The country faces hard decisions and challenges, which will likely take years to address, but we all want immediate solutions and this causes rapid decline in trust in the PM. As we have seen over the past decade. I don’t think the next PM will change this, Burnham or otherwise. None have shown much will to address it. Starmer tried somewhat and got stick, so we’re left with pretending there can be no short term harm in trying to rebuild a more affordable economy, where wages can match expenditure. Which will lead to the next PM likely facing the same loss of trust when reality bites.

1 user thanked author for this post.

alcazar

[Deereyme66]

The mob got what they wanted. How long before they’re chanting ‘Andy Burnham is a w***er’ till they finally get who they really want in power? Farage.

1 user thanked author for this post.

alcazar

[Iron-awe]

Streeting isn’t daft he wouldn’t have stood a chance against Burnham in a contest, it’s virtually a coronation event TBF but whether that’s democratic enough for some we will see, I’m sure someone will stand against him but I’m guessing its pretty much a formality now.

[alcazar]

Interesting.
Being as quite a few Liebour shadow ministers made it clear that Sunak shouldn’t have taken over from BoJo without a general election, what will be their position now?
Oh, sorry, I forgot Liebour’s motto:
Do as we say,
Not as we do.

[Iron-awe]

alcazar wrote:

Interesting.
Being as quite a few Liebour shadow ministers made it clear that Sunak shouldn’t have taken over from BoJo without a general election, what will be their position now?
Oh, sorry, I forgot Liebour’s motto:
Do as we say,
Not as we do.

All opposition parties do alcy even the idiot Farage with his 8 mps ( 5 former tories ) all crowing in chorus has asked for an election, be careful what you wish for.

[Siderite]

To be fair, I think the hypocrisy from politicians and silly games is part of the reason why trust is so low, but people do excuse it for their own side and vilify it from others.

Darren Jones and Al Carns rumoured to be thinking of leadership runs.

[Author]

Posts