Remember: Labour canāt be trusted with the economy.
Yes his hypocrisy is obvious and appalling, including Trump-like comments about refugees. I just see obvious hypocrisy being tolerated in others. Do Palestinians not have the same right to self-determination as Ukrainians? Starmer literally advocated collective punishment but weāre supposed to tolerate this to get the Tories out?
Equating Galloway to Starmer is hilarious, Iām sorry.
One is an attention-seeking twat, and the other had to be persuaded to stay on as Labour leader.
When did Starmer āliterally advocateā collective punishment?
Probably from statements like this.
āWhile I understand calls for a ceasefire at this stage, I do not believe that it is the correct position now,ā
Iāve just been listen to some prick on the radio going on about ābenefits claimantsā by which they mean working people on minimum wages who apparently should be living in the sewers on a diet of raw oats or something. Anyway, the subject of them having televisions and smartphones came up again.
This is always the spurious argument, in that something that was once regarded as a luxury item should thus always remain so. Now the smartphone argument has been discussed on here before and it has been pointed out that they are now essential items for people in the modern workforce, particularly for those seeking work. It would be the equivalent of an 18th century miner not owning a pick and shovel.
However, the TV one is interesting. Is a TV still a major luxury item? They certainly were at one point and this was neatly highlighted when I visited the broadcast museum in Bremen the other week. This is a colour TV from 1968:
This was about 20" in screen size. When new, this cost 5050DM (2590ā¬ or Ā£2214). Iām not sure how that adjusts for inflation but that was 7 months gross income for the average German at the time. You could now pick up something of similar screen size for 99ā¬ which is about 3.5 hours worth of average working time. An item which was, at one time, a significant purchase that would have taken years of disposable income to afford is now something that you can pick up at Aldi along with your cornflakes after a morningās work, and for that it is likely to be the main source of entertainment in a low income house.
However, I do find the mindset frustrating. Rather than questioning why someone who got lucky is flying around in a private jet, they think the problem is the guy at the bus-stop with an iPhone.
While a statement like that is disappointing and the wrong position to take, I donāt think it can be described as āadvocating collective punishmentā.
Accusing Starmer of advocating collective punishment (a war crime) is a very serious allegation.
Iād say it is a lot more serious than ādisappointingā.
Heās basically self preserving his and his partyās position and voters perception of them pre election.
When in fact what heās doing is sending signals that itās fine what Israel are doing.
Itās also economically illiterate.
There is a general principle in economics that if you want to grow an economy you put money into the hand of people who will spend it, people who donāt already have the means of meetings all their needs and wants.
There might be a moral argument around why someone who canāt put food on the table is buying a big telly (and itās an argument usually based in judgemental hypocrisy), but on an economic level it really doesnāt matter. What matters is that they spend the money they get within the economy, where it returns money to the exchequer and stimulates growth.
If you give money to people who are already wealthy enough to indulge their every desire, then it has no effect. All that happens if the money is put away in hedge funds and investments where the taxman canāt touch it.
This is where the money has gone. The Tories still blindly throw money at the already wealthy in the vain hope (we presume) it will trickle down. They might as well throw it in the fucking sea, for all the good it does in the hands of the millionaires they pump it towards.
OK, itās more than disappointing. But he isnāt advocating collective punishment. If you are going to accuse Starmer of endorsing a war crime you need a bit more evidence.
I didnāt accuse him of anything.
I simply provided a statement heād released, basically refusing to call for a ceasefire, and suggested it was perhaps an example of why @WeeJoe said what he did.
Thatās my take, and Iām not getting any deeper into this with you.
There is also a pretty sound argument that people are much better off if they receive cash benefit rather than benefit in kind. This whole ātheyāll just spend it on drink and drugsā thing is entirely untrue (unless it is an addict in which case they will just barter the benefit in kind).
Iāve heard the former Conservative MP, Rory Stewart, speaking about this in terms of overseas aid - cash donations are by far the most effective way of both lifting people out of poverty and stimulating the local economy.
If they invested the money you could see the logic but they donāt - they merely buy up existing assets. The real economy doesnāt grow but those assets become unaffordable.
It may well be, but my point is that if you are going to accuse someone of endorsing a war crime, you need to actually be able to provide evidence of them endorsing a war crime. Which what you posted isnāt.
I appreciate you didnāt make the initial comment, but you were quick enough to jump in.
Well it is an open forum.
Just highlighting there is a middle ground between actual war crime accusations and the other end of the spectrum where heās excused of, well, anything remotely considered wrongdoing.
I wasnāt even aware this was planned. I wonder if the government is also going to surveil the bank accounts of tax cheats?
āWe have a duty to treat taxpayerās money responsibly ā which is why we are cracking down on fraud.ā
Just let the absolute fucking brass neck of that statement coming from this government sink in.
At the moment there are money laundering checks if payments above around Ā£5000 are made to an account. Iām not entirely sure what that entails but it is some sort of check to see that the transfer is from legitimate sources. If they are doing that for benefit payments then it is going to hit pretty much every transaction. Iām not even sure what they are trying to achieve there. Benefits are all paid electronically so it isnāt going to be hugely difficult to flag it from the senders end.
Itās performative politics. Clamp downs on benefit claimants always goes down well with Tory supporters.
Iād bet now that this scheme will end up costing more to administer than it saves in stopping fraud, but thatās not the point.