Keir Starmer Six Milestones speech and paper

FriedGreenTomatoes2

“From whom am I to take my marching orders? From men who fancy they are 'Admirable Crichtons', but have not got sufficient brains and ability to run a whelk stall.”
^John Burns, Labour MP 1894^

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

FriedGreenTomatoes2

“From whom am I to take my marching orders? From men who fancy they are 'Admirable Crichtons', but have not got sufficient brains and ability to run a whelk stall.”
^John Burns, Labour MP 1894^

Do you think that Reform 'men' are exempt from this?

FriedGreenTomatoes2

What delicious irony to make this speech at the home of the “Carry On” films. That's made my day.

LizzieDrip

It’s clear that, no matter what the Labour Government does, there are those on GN who will ridicule it. Hey ho🤷‍♀️

And equally those who will condemn any government than Labour, who have clearly shown us that they intend to punish those they do not like, and who certainly did not tell us what they they were going to do once in government.

Everything is fully costed and fully funded

Yes, of course it was!

MaizieD

FriedGreenTomatoes2

“From whom am I to take my marching orders? From men who fancy they are 'Admirable Crichtons', but have not got sufficient brains and ability to run a whelk stall.”
^John Burns, Labour MP 1894^

Do you think that Reform 'men' are exempt from this?

It did rather occur. Mocking is cheap, however. Easy to find "witty" quotes online.

However, both are just pointless unless we actually discuss the issues at hand and it just kills discussion.

Harder to criticise the O/P by actually saying, "well, such and such is wrong/over ambitious/ and this is what they should do better"

PoliticsNerd

I can only manage one thing at a time Doodledog, otherwise research takes over

I do basically agree with you though - what would be your first suggestions? I'd just have to see what a "a fairer system" means. For an ultra capitalist would mean something different to what it means an ultra progressive and an authoritarian would see "fairness" differently to a libertarian but we should be able to take the best ideas from each.

I don't know .

I just get tired of hearing how income tax is 'the fairest way' to bring in money, when it is possible for those who can afford it to opt out of paying it and still have the benefits of living in a society where so much is free at point of use. By what definition is that 'fair'?

I am basically socialist (but not communist) in my views. I believe in a benign Big State, where the strong look after the weak - basically 'from each according to ability and to each according to need', but without a cap on what people can keep if they have earned it.

I think that things like health and education and pensions should be available to all, and believe in collective provision for (and equal access to) things like defence, roads, law and order and so on. That can only work well if we all pay in, though, and of course it makes sense for those who have more to pay more, and for access to First World benefits to be universal, rather than dependent on the level of contributions people can afford to make. There has to be some sort of means-test on income (so that low earners pay less than high earners), but to concentrate tax on earned income reduces the number of payees and can't be described as fair. It ignores the fact that those who can afford not to work often pay no direct tax at all.

We can't stop people from using the roads, or tell the police only to protect those who have contributed, so the only real course of action is to charge everyone, but then we run into issues of coercion into work, which is far from ideal.

So in short, I don't have the answer, but IMO it is not to keep taking more from those on PAYE (which includes taxes on pensions). We need to find a more equitable system and spread the load. I suspect that AI might do that for us before much longer though, as there will be fewer people in salaried employment and other ways of funding civil society will have to be found.

I think they've rather set themselves up to fail.. and will continue to do so until they have the guts to tax the super wealthy.. we'll all be watching them now...

pascal30

I think they've rather set themselves up to fail.. and will continue to do so until they have the guts to tax the super wealthy.. we'll all be watching them now...

I think the measure of whether people have more disposable income at the end of the term is a good one. If we pay a bit more tax for more services, so have to fork out for fewer things we should be better off, even if our purses are a bit lighter.

I'm not sure how a government can promise that children will be 'school ready' unless they bring in compulsory nurseries, which is most unlikely, and 'school ready' is rather vague.

The aims are otherwise SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound) which is a good thing, though. It means that they can be measured so we can see if they have succeeded or not. I can't say I disagree with any of them as presented. The devil is always in the detail, but these seem to be spelt out clearly enough to avoid much confusion - the only missing information is how they are going to be achieved, but that will involve much longer-term strategies.

OldFrill
Has he lied to the monarch or illegally prorogued parliament yet?

Prorogued Parliament, no.
Lied to the monarch? I don’t know what he said to King Charles, so I can’t answer that.

Has anyone said it was right for BJ to do those things?

However . . .
Using the he did something worse excuse or KS hasn’t done either of those things surely doesn’t make everything KS has done right?

He has certainly lied about some things and was two-faced when he did what he criticised his predecessors for planning to do, using the same reason that he criticised them for using.
I’m still wondering why, in opposition, he didn’t need the glasses that appeared after he was elected.

You can get him on how the glasses were paid for Mollygo, but he’s always worn glasses/contact lenses. Here he is in 1990s.
www.indy100.com/politics/keir-starmer-old-90s-hair

What has KS lied about?

He has done some unpopular things, but before the election he was accused of not saying what he was going to do. What did he say he would do that he hasn't, or what did he say he wouldn't do that he has?

Casdon

You can get him on how the glasses were paid for Mollygo, but he’s always worn glasses/contact lenses. Here he is in 1990s.
www.indy100.com/politics/keir-starmer-old-90s-hair

None of the photos I saw in Parliament had him in glasses. Obviously you found what you wanted. Glasses were supposed to make him look wiser . . .

He has always worn glasses for work Mollygo, but not for public appearances, so draw your own conclusions (ahh, you already have). I don’t know many people of 60+ who don’t wear glasses though, because contacts become less comfortable as you age and your eyes are dry unfortunately. I expect he burns plenty of midnight oil.

Doodledog

What has KS lied about?

He has done some unpopular things, but before the election he was accused of not saying what he was going to do. What did he say he would do that he hasn't, or what did he say he wouldn't do that he has?

He did say, before election, easily found on social media, in Interviews.
He would not get rid of WFA,
He would protect farmers,
He would not raise taxes, but by raising employers NI contributions, where on earth do you think they are going to get the money from, fresh air, no their employees, by not giving pay rises, and customers.
You can go on pretending he's doing well. He is not. Disliked by much of the country, according to polls.

Starmer said his manifesto was fully funded.
I wonder if the farmers think it was fully funded?

Yes he said 2 years ago he wouldn't change WFA but this was not in the manifesto for the election. Plenty of politicians have had to change what they've said 2 or 3 years before because circumstances change. Tory example abound, but that would be just doing a "whataboutry"

Re farmers - he said he would protect them in any future trade deals, (have checked) he did not ever allude to IT and farmers.

He said they would not raise income tax, and he has not. The grey area is taxing the employers NI.

We need the 6 commitments in the O/P. You can't fund police and NHS out of thin air. Labour picked up a broken desperate situation - why else did Sunak call such an early election?

Thanks, Wyllow.

I have read the manifesto, and can see no lies in it. I don't remember him saying he would keep WFA, but obviously haven't seen every interview. All the same, we all know that there are times when things can't go as planned, when we don't have the budget we expected because of a cut in income or an increase in expenses. WFA certainly wasn't mentioned in his election promises or the manifesto, and the point was made that it was cut because of the gap in the finances left behind by the previous government.

What he said was that a Labour government would not hit working people in their wage packets and it hasn't. Those on minimum wage are better off, and there have been no tax rises. I would have like to see Jeremy Hunt's free on personal allowances reversed, but again, given the state of the economy that couldn't happen.

I am not pretending anything. What have I said to warrant that accusation? I just asked what lies he has told, and you haven't come up with any - are you 'pretending' that there were lies?

As for how well the government (and/or KS) is doing, I have my views as you have yours. I don't believe everything I see on social media as I am aware of how unreliable it can be. 'Polls' will show whatever the pollsters want them to say, so I don't take much notice of those either, unless they come with a properly referenced methodology showing how the sampling was done, and the exact wording of the questions.

I have no strong feelings about the farmers, but I have little sympathy with people who buy land to deliberately avoid paying IT when the time comes. Obviously it is difficult to prove or legislate for intention, but I do think that that is a loophole that needed to be closed. My understanding is that Brexit did a lot of damage to farmers, despite the fact that on the whole they voted for it, and the hoped-for Brexit reset might go some way to mitigate the damage caused.

petal53

Starmer said his manifesto was fully funded.
I wonder if the farmers think it was fully funded?

It probably was fully funded-just he refrained from mentioning where the funds were coming from.
Nice omission.

Doodledog

Thanks, Wyllow.

I have read the manifesto, and can see no lies in it. I don't remember him saying he would keep WFA, but obviously haven't seen every interview. All the same, we all know that there are times when things can't go as planned, when we don't have the budget we expected because of a cut in income or an increase in expenses. WFA certainly wasn't mentioned in his election promises or the manifesto, and the point was made that it was cut because of the gap in the finances left behind by the previous government.

What he said was that a Labour government would not hit working people in their wage packets and it hasn't. Those on minimum wage are better off, and there have been no tax rises. I would have like to see Jeremy Hunt's free on personal allowances reversed, but again, given the state of the economy that couldn't happen.

I am not pretending anything. What have I said to warrant that accusation? I just asked what lies he has told, and you haven't come up with any - are you 'pretending' that there were lies?

As for how well the government (and/or KS) is doing, I have my views as you have yours. I don't believe everything I see on social media as I am aware of how unreliable it can be. 'Polls' will show whatever the pollsters want them to say, so I don't take much notice of those either, unless they come with a properly referenced methodology showing how the sampling was done, and the exact wording of the questions.

I have no strong feelings about the farmers, but I have little sympathy with people who buy land to deliberately avoid paying IT when the time comes. Obviously it is difficult to prove or legislate for intention, but I do think that that is a loophole that needed to be closed. My understanding is that Brexit did a lot of damage to farmers, despite the fact that on the whole they voted for it, and the hoped-for Brexit reset might go some way to mitigate the damage caused.

WFA allowance withdrawn from OAP,s but not from MPs!

BevSec
WFA allowance withdrawn from OAP,s but not from MPs!
I don’t think they’re old enough or poor enough to get WFA.
They call it expenses when you’re an MP.

Only pensioners were entitled to it. Whatever MPs get is not the WFA, and is not claimed on bills accrued in their private homes.

This is from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority:
MPs may claim utility costs for property registered with us. MPs who stay in rented accommodation can claim for running costs, including utility bills, subject to an overall budget cap. They cannot claim for bills for their private homes, or for things like mortgage payments.

The principle is that many MPs will need accommodation at a second location to carry out their parliamentary functions as an MP. MPs who need to travel to Westminster may claim for accommodation while they are in London, whether this is for renting a property or staying in an hotel (for which there is a cost cap). We believe this is fundamentally important for democracy: without sufficient funding, MPs would not be able to focus on the vital work of representing and supporting their constituents. There is also a risk that people without independent wealth or another source of income would be excluded from becoming MPs.

www.theipsa.org.uk/freedom-of-information/rfi-202208-12

They call it expenses when you’re an MP. And IPSA will tell you that the public is responsible for funding MPs.

Doodledog

Only pensioners were entitled to it. Whatever MPs get is not the WFA, and is not claimed on bills accrued in their private homes.

This is from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority:
MPs may claim utility costs for property registered with us. MPs who stay in rented accommodation can claim for running costs, including utility bills, subject to an overall budget cap. They cannot claim for bills for their private homes, or for things like mortgage payments.

The principle is that many MPs will need accommodation at a second location to carry out their parliamentary functions as an MP. MPs who need to travel to Westminster may claim for accommodation while they are in London, whether this is for renting a property or staying in an hotel (for which there is a cost cap). We believe this is fundamentally important for democracy: without sufficient funding, MPs would not be able to focus on the vital work of representing and supporting their constituents. There is also a risk that people without independent wealth or another source of income would be excluded from becoming MPs.

www.theipsa.org.uk/freedom-of-information/rfi-202208-12

How can anyone defend it!

Not sure what you mean?

Paying expenses to MP's is entirely reasonable per se and has been going on for years and years for the reasons laid out in Doodledogs' last couple of paragraphs.

One can disagree about levels, and amounts, and on previous discussions on here many have voiced their view it's time to look at those.

And again the ^ it’s been going on for years^