Tories battered

myboro

New member
Not in my experience of british companies.


pre-covid pandemic, and pre the government destroying the economy. I've no doubt their could be a place for it, just not imminently.
As corporation tax is a tax on profits your experience seems to be absent of economic reality.

I wonder how Norway manages taxing oil and gas companies at over 70% and having a sovereign wealth fund we could only dream of. If they make a quid they will continue, it is the nature of the market FFS
 

BoroMart

Well-known member
As corporation tax is a tax on profits your experience seems to be absent of economic reality.
british companies are not big on investment in general. US are far better, and most of the european nations I've worked with like Sweden, Finland and Germany. Revenue spent on investment, is less profit to provide to share holders, that was my point that you didn't get.
 

BoroMart

Well-known member
I wonder how Norway manages taxing oil and gas companies at over 70% and having a sovereign wealth fund we could only dream of. If they make a quid they will continue, it is the nature of the market FFS
one specific example in one specific country isn't indicative of the whole economy in that country FFS. Particularly such a lucrative business as oil and gas in Finland, I mean comparing that to raising corporation tax across all our economy is apples and oranges. Again though it misses my point, that investors will invest in companies that give biggest yield, if a company is taxed to the hilt it won't return a good yield for investors, shares will plummet, next COO will be tasked with cutting costs and that includes investment, they won't be able to raise capital for investment easy either with a falling share price. Business can't expect organic growth either, as cost of living crisis puts the squeeze on their potential customers, who instead, will be keeping money in their pocket, or more likely seeing it leave their pocket on essential spending. Live in the real world, think through the consequences from top to bottom.

The reality is, right now, we need to promote growth and that means making it easier for investment, not reducing it. The wealthy will not just blindly accept a corp tax increase and take the hit on their investments, they'll pass it on to customers as they always do, it's the route to hyper inflation.

That isn't to say that increasing corp tax spend shouldn't happen in the future, when inflation cools. It should, and I'd absolutely support it then.
 
Last edited:

Paintolerance

Well-known member
Johnson yesterday:

At the moment I am thinking actively about the third term and you know, what could happen then,” adding, “But I will review that when I get to it.”

He continued: “We’ve embarked on a massive project to change the government, of the constitution of the country, the way we run our legal system, the way we manage our borders, our economy. All sorts of things we’re doing differently. We also, at the same time, are embarked on a colossal project to unite and level up … It’s going to take time. And I want to keep driving it forward.”

Now, if after reading that, you don't intend to vote Labour next time round (or Lib Dem or Green if in a seat where they have the best change to remove these dangerous feckers) because Starmer is not left wing enough (he isnt for me incidentally) then you need to seriously wake the f*ck up
 

ForssAwakens

Well-known member
Exactly I’d prefer a corbyn over starmer any day of the week, but in Redcar I’d rather have lab/Lib dem than Jacob young. Got to ask yourself do you want your vote to count or not. If your in a marginal seat abstaining could be just as damaging to getting rid of this shower of ****
 

festa5

Well-known member
Starmer doesn't really do it for me either, but I don't think I'm really the type of voter he's targeting. I'm never going to vote Tory and certainly with this particularly odious brand of Tory I'll vote for anyone who can stop them who isn't right wing. To an extent, he can take my vote for granted. Certainly this time round.

Who he needs to win over are those voters in the centre or even right of centre. He's trying to win an election as opposed to convincing people socialist policies are the good of the country and the majority of people in it.

It's a fine line he's trying to walk, he thinks he needs to be able to convince voters with some very different political beliefs to vote for labour in order to win. Which means he isn't really going to particularly inspire anyone, but hopefully won't turn too many people off labour either. It's clearly annoyed a lot people to the left of the party.

I don't know if that's the right approach or not, but whatever else you think of him, he's clearly no idiot. I think he's hoping that those labour voters who are a bit annoyed, or uninspired when push comes to shove will vote labour anyway to stop Johnson (and/or that the numbers of those really annoyed aren't significant enough anyway) and that he'll also hoover up significant votes from the centre.

It's a fine line, but looks to me like that's his strategy. Easy to judge, but it's a very difficult position to be in. Corbyn was marmite and he needs to bring back voters who (rightly or wrongly) hated him. He needs to show them he's different. He also has a hostile media to contend with who have spent decades brainwashing large parts of the population into thinking socialism - bad.

So even if you don't necessarily like him or agree with him, there is definitely a logic to his approach.
 

SmallTown

Well-known member
See my last post to you. You're in no position to judge others and a little humility from you once in a while would make you a much better poster on this board.

If Labour (against the odds, thanks to Starmers anti internal democracy reforms) somehow had a more left wing leader again you'd probably be among the first going straight back to voting tory.
I'm in every position to judge other becasue I know the mistakes I've made. You're still just attacking me personally. So let's try and get you to address the topic rather than make petty personal remarks.

Do you think Starmer is as bad as Johnson? Do you think "they are all the same"?
 

RoaryTheLion

Well-known member
That’s your opinion. I haven’t seen any actions from Starmer that suggest he’s any different to any other career politician. In his most recent speech he left out almost all of the pledges he made that got him elected. He hasn’t challenged the PM when he should have, he’s more than likely broken lockdown rules himself, he’s spent the majority of his time purging the left from the party.

I get what he’s doing, he recognises he has to appeal to the centre to win back the centrists that voted Tory in the last election, but that doesn’t leave any option for the genuine socialists on the left.

Mate, you are absolutely spot on. Some people on here have no appreciation of nuance and fundamental personal principles. Stick to your guns because I respect your stance and approach massively.
 

RoaryTheLion

Well-known member
Do you think Starmer is as bad as Johnson? Do you think "they are all the same"?

I’ve had a read through this thread. Who are you quoting here? I may have missed the post but it seems to me that you’ve misappropriated some comments and worked them into that little soundbite. Now you’re using them as a weapon and that is disingenuous. I’m all for a passionate debate but that’s unfair in my book.
 

HolgateCorner

Well-known member
True. But Labour also went in to 97 promising devolution, house of lords reform, electoral reform, and to renationalise the railways! Okay in practice they only went ahead with 1 and a half of those but it was still a bold policy offer.

Starmer's Labour is more like the New Labour of 2005-10 than 97. There'll be no big constitutional changes on offer. I know a lot of folk are deluding themselves that he'll suddenly be up for PR. Not a chance.
I think if he put PR on the table he would walk the election.
 

SuperStu

Well-known member
I'm in every position to judge other becasue I know the mistakes I've made. You're still just attacking me personally. So let's try and get you to address the topic rather than make petty personal remarks.

Do you think Starmer is as bad as Johnson? Do you think "they are all the same"?

Read the thread ST. I've addressed the topic plenty. Honestly don't you feel even slightly hypocritical posting comments saying other FMTTMers are the reason for the decline of the country and then turning round and crying about me "personally attacking" you?

If you genuinely think it's so out of order for someone to pull you up on how you actually voted, why don't you offer an apology to Scrug and Funky_Chicken? You did the same to them. And not even based on something they've actually voted for. Just because you perceive them to not be appropriately happy clappy about a Labour leader that's anti trade unions.
 

SuperStu

Well-known member
I think if he put PR on the table he would walk the election.

Maybe so. But I don't think he would put it on the table anyway. His whole brand is status quo. Tory politics with a neat haircut.

Even if PR does make it on to Labour's next manifesto, unfortunately Starmer's already shown us how comfortable he is lying to win elections. It'd be dropped in an instant.
 

h_m_boro

Well-known member
Starmer doesn't really do it for me either, but I don't think I'm really the type of voter he's targeting. I'm never going to vote Tory and certainly with this particularly odious brand of Tory I'll vote for anyone who can stop them who isn't right wing. To an extent, he can take my vote for granted. Certainly this time round.

Who he needs to win over are those voters in the centre or even right of centre. He's trying to win an election as opposed to convincing people socialist policies are the good of the country and the majority of people in it.

It's a fine line he's trying to walk, he thinks he needs to be able to convince voters with some very different political beliefs to vote for labour in order to win. Which means he isn't really going to particularly inspire anyone, but hopefully won't turn too many people off labour either. It's clearly annoyed a lot people to the left of the party.

I don't know if that's the right approach or not, but whatever else you think of him, he's clearly no idiot. I think he's hoping that those labour voters who are a bit annoyed, or uninspired when push comes to shove will vote labour anyway to stop Johnson (and/or that the numbers of those really annoyed aren't significant enough anyway) and that he'll also hoover up significant votes from the centre.

It's a fine line, but looks to me like that's his strategy. Easy to judge, but it's a very difficult position to be in. Corbyn was marmite and he needs to bring back voters who (rightly or wrongly) hated him. He needs to show them he's different. He also has a hostile media to contend with who have spent decades brainwashing large parts of the population into thinking socialism - bad.

So even if you don't necessarily like him or agree with him, there is definitely a logic to his approach.
Some good points, but Starmer and his hand picked cabal have been hell bent on purging anything left wing, the core Labour support. And by doing this lost 200k + loyal members and grass root activists.
He's broke all of his leadership pledges, failed to go after the Tories on numerous occasions and I feel a large number of the swing voters are just not convinced by him.
I agree he's in a very perilous situation with the media, which he needs to win over in order to win an election, but he just seems to be doing.....🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️

I do hope he gets the "better him than Bozo" vote, but my worry is come 2024 the RWM will ramp up their smear campaign against him and voters will be easily swayed and Bozo will be painted as the country's saviour......if indeed he stays that long.

My big hope is that if he does get into power he will introduce legislation etc to make this country a much fairer society and not become a Tory Party lite, sitting just right of centre working for the establishment to keep things ticking over for their own benefit.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
I have said this before and I will try it again. Starmer and Johnson will target about 500k voters in the next election. They are the voters that will swing it one way or the other. Labour don't care what the staunch Labour voters think, they already have their vote.

Elections are won and lost in marginal seats in UK elections. Its estimated that as few as 250k votes wins our losses an election, if they are in the right seats.

It's nice to see that Labour have finally realised this. Shame lots of Labour voters haven't.
 

HolgateCorner

Well-known member
Maybe so. But I don't think he would put it on the table anyway. His whole brand is status quo. Tory politics with a neat haircut.

Even if PR does make it on to Labour's next manifesto, unfortunately Starmer's already shown us how comfortable he is lying to win elections. It'd be dropped in an instant.
The Lib Dems will want it as part of a pact and the SNP will want an independence referendum, Starmer probably will not have a choice. The Tories will be desperate to avoid PR having benefitted most from their well practised divide and rule approach, it will be interesting to see what stunts they come up with to stop it happening.

I see Andy Burnham is lobbying for it already.
 

SmallTown

Well-known member
I’ve had a read through this thread. Who are you quoting here? I may have missed the post but it seems to me that you’ve misappropriated some comments and worked them into that little soundbite. Now you’re using them as a weapon and that is disingenuous. I’m all for a passionate debate but that’s unfair in my book.
And I find just attacking people because of who they are and not what they are saying unfair. We all have different standards I gues
 

SmallTown

Well-known member
Read the thread ST. I've addressed the topic plenty. Honestly don't you feel even slightly hypocritical posting comments saying other FMTTMers are the reason for the decline of the country and then turning round and crying about me "personally attacking" you?

If you genuinely think it's so out of order for someone to pull you up on how you actually voted, why don't you offer an apology to Scrug and Funky_Chicken? You did the same to them. And not even based on something they've actually voted for. Just because you perceive them to not be appropriately happy clappy about a Labour leader that's anti trade unions.
I disagree. We've been through this a million times so I'm not going to talk about history.

My point to struggle and chicken still stands. Labour infighting and saying "they are all the same" when they really aren't is enabling the Tories. Its going to help them win the next general election. I've seen no one attempt to prove that wrong.
 

ForssAwakens

Well-known member
The Lib Dems will want it as part of a pact and the SNP will want an independence referendum, Starmer probably will not have a choice. The Tories will be desperate to avoid PR having benefitted most from their well practised divide and rule approach, it will be interesting to see what stunts they come up with to stop it happening.

I see Andy Burnham is lobbying for it already.
Would love Andy burnham to be leader, I think he could bridge the gap between the left and centre of the party
 

SuperStu

Well-known member
I have said this before and I will try it again. Starmer and Johnson will target about 500k voters in the next election. They are the voters that will swing it one way or the other. Labour don't care what the staunch Labour voters think, they already have their vote.

Elections are won and lost in marginal seats in UK elections. Its estimated that as few as 250k votes wins our losses an election, if they are in the right seats.

It's nice to see that Labour have finally realised this. Shame lots of Labour voters haven't.

Laughing I'm not saying you're totally wrong but you're not totally right either. Of course the marginal seats are important in our system. Of course swing voters are the ticket to winning the marginal seats.

But I think some people end up convincing themselves that what is or isn't a marginal seat is somehow fixed or ordained from on high.

Labour didn't care what Scottish voters thought because they already had their votes, until they didn't.

Labour didn't care what "red wall" voters thought because they already had their votes, until they didn't.

It's all well and good basing your entire strategy on a specific target audience in specific target seats... if it works. But it has to be taken as agiven that such a strategy includes a risk that you lose other voters and potentially create marginals out of safe seats. A bit like a football manager throwing players forwards to try and get a goal.
 
Top