I've been telling people for years to judge Starmer by his actions and not by his words. He was a snake when he tried to oust Corbyn and he's no different now. Good article.
No reflection on you Shaggy as you're in the US - but I'm repeatedly staggered by how often I see a comment like this from people here in the UK, because we already have one - it's called the Green Party. But instead of rallying behind this existing and obvious Socialist alternative (and getting serious action on climate change as a bonus), many people here seem to prefer fragmentation of the progressive vote.
Until the Green Party is able to admit that men cannot be women it's a sick joke party, claiming to be led by science while promoting fairy tales about "gender".
If that's what you hear, maybe it's time to get your ears syringed Shaggy!
Trans "healthcare" is a multi-billion dollar industry, profiting from harming women, children and fucked-up men, but perhaps the safety of women and children is not a priority for you.
Women are 51% of the population, not a "tiny number of people".
The trans lobby is not all all powerless. Transgender ideology has captured nearly all major Western institutions, including the NHS, where women can no longer be guaranteed single-sex wards.
I hear you. Here's the thing, tho': Green parties don't ever seem to want to co-operate with other left factions; believing that either a.) other factions are obligated to follow its lead in all aspects;
or b.) Close contact with other factions for an extended period will expose them to being "taken over" by those other factions, costing them their integrity.
In the US, b. is a reasonable fear, since the Democratic Party has been known to insert "chaos agents" into Green primary politics for that very purpose, also there has been more than one small-scale attempt at "entryism" by Maoists and the like.
If the Green Party wants to wear the mantle of the entire left, it has to both get its act together internationally and be able to tolerate diverse viewpoints in its internal power structure.
I wish you were wrong but I believe that your cutting analysis of Starmer's foundational speech is spot on. The man is not to be trusted. It is scant consolation that I did not vote for him/this - nor did most of the electorate.
3. He might (horror of horrors) have a solution to some peoblems
4. Does details, might listen too others
5. Somewhat of a realist
6. Would promote talent rather than relatives or supporters
7. Might treat devolved nations better
Kier's problem is whatever he wants to do he has to tell the electorate the opposite. Hopefully he's putting the wrong inputs into a wrong system.
'Governments do not spend "taxpayers’ money". The money that is spent is created, and the money that is raised in taxation is destroyed to keep inflation under control.'
How do they destroy money from taxation ? Richard Murphy a renowned economist thinks having a deficit is great and if somehow it was cleared getting another one ASAP would be a good idea. I imagine virtually all economies run without surpluses.
I've been telling people for years to judge Starmer by his actions and not by his words. He was a snake when he tried to oust Corbyn and he's no different now. Good article.
James O’Brien’s reaction to it was predictable, hilarious but also chilling. “If you dont like that you don’t like Britain.” WTF?
https://www.google.com/search?q=james.obrien+keir+starmer+soeech&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-gb&client=safari#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:a2531c60,vid:Lho1e8xkfq0,st:0
Wow. What a Starmerite prick.
So, how's the effort to build a new left party in the UK going, now that the GE is over?
Asking hopefully, from the US; because it's getting increasingly clear that we both need one.
No reflection on you Shaggy as you're in the US - but I'm repeatedly staggered by how often I see a comment like this from people here in the UK, because we already have one - it's called the Green Party. But instead of rallying behind this existing and obvious Socialist alternative (and getting serious action on climate change as a bonus), many people here seem to prefer fragmentation of the progressive vote.
Until the Green Party is able to admit that men cannot be women it's a sick joke party, claiming to be led by science while promoting fairy tales about "gender".
Sounds like right-wing crotch-cricketry to me, dude.
Whining about "gender" doesn't make anybody richer or safer, & doesn't keep the ruling class from stepping on our necks.
May be time to adjust your priorities, comrade.
If that's what you hear, maybe it's time to get your ears syringed Shaggy!
Trans "healthcare" is a multi-billion dollar industry, profiting from harming women, children and fucked-up men, but perhaps the safety of women and children is not a priority for you.
Nah, you're being sold a bill of goods on that one, Neil.
That crotch-cricket bullshit just turns you away from defending your class towards picking on a tiny number of people as powerless as you are.
The only people getting rich from that squalor are grifter scum like Chaya Raichik. It sure ain't doin' a damn thing for me or you.
Which bit is "crotch-cricket bullshit"?
Women are 51% of the population, not a "tiny number of people".
The trans lobby is not all all powerless. Transgender ideology has captured nearly all major Western institutions, including the NHS, where women can no longer be guaranteed single-sex wards.
I hear you. Here's the thing, tho': Green parties don't ever seem to want to co-operate with other left factions; believing that either a.) other factions are obligated to follow its lead in all aspects;
or b.) Close contact with other factions for an extended period will expose them to being "taken over" by those other factions, costing them their integrity.
In the US, b. is a reasonable fear, since the Democratic Party has been known to insert "chaos agents" into Green primary politics for that very purpose, also there has been more than one small-scale attempt at "entryism" by Maoists and the like.
If the Green Party wants to wear the mantle of the entire left, it has to both get its act together internationally and be able to tolerate diverse viewpoints in its internal power structure.
So far, I see 0 signs of either one happening.
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/08/global-poverty-grows-as-super-rich-get-richer-faster.html
Your analysis of the dishonest traitor's speech is spot on. Thanks.
I wish you were wrong but I believe that your cutting analysis of Starmer's foundational speech is spot on. The man is not to be trusted. It is scant consolation that I did not vote for him/this - nor did most of the electorate.
Sunak, Farrage and Starmer. I’d love to refer to them as the Three Stooges but that would clearly do a disservice to Moe, Larry and Curlie.
FELICES ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE
ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE FELICES
FELICES
Kier Starmer:
Dislikes:
1. 'Means to an end' type
2. Deceptive
3. Too authoritarian (Conservative)
4. Will in effect be cruel
5. Petty and pedantic (Mrs T portrait)
6. Not a pacifist
7. Anti-left anti-poor, pro-rich
8. A flag waver
Likes:
1. Intelligent
2. Not lazy like Boris Johnson
3. He might (horror of horrors) have a solution to some peoblems
4. Does details, might listen too others
5. Somewhat of a realist
6. Would promote talent rather than relatives or supporters
7. Might treat devolved nations better
Kier's problem is whatever he wants to do he has to tell the electorate the opposite. Hopefully he's putting the wrong inputs into a wrong system.
'Governments do not spend "taxpayers’ money". The money that is spent is created, and the money that is raised in taxation is destroyed to keep inflation under control.'
How do they destroy money from taxation ? Richard Murphy a renowned economist thinks having a deficit is great and if somehow it was cleared getting another one ASAP would be a good idea. I imagine virtually all economies run without surpluses.