Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party? (Vol. 2)

[bitchstewie]

119 said:

Would be interesting to see some further info on that.

Conservative Party allowing 15-year-olds to vote for PM despite opposing 16-year-olds voting in general election

Tory leadership election: Meet the overseas voters picking the next PM

Like I said it may have changed.

[Mr Penguin]

It's a financially difficult thing for the parties to suggest but the leadership election should only be voted on by the MPs, or even better the Conservative approach pre-1965 (I think it's the right year).

[Electro1980]

DeejRC said:

On the other hand I also consider it utterly perverse to whinge about voter ID. It’s a fairly logical thing to ask for and the vast vast vast majority of us have some form of it.

Maybe the vast majority to, but not all. It adds a barrier, both in terms of those without ID and those that do having to get hold of it and taking it to vote. Maybe a small barrier, but one none the less, and one that caused issues for at least two Tory MPs. For that cost it adds no real benefit given the vanishingly small risk it is supposedly tackling.

turbobloke said:

Older than the primary school playgorund club, at least in terms of mental age - they can't cope with different opinions via discussion and resort to name-calling as a means of advertising their inadequacy. Which is fine.

TB complaining about name calling? That’s rich.

Edited by Electro1980 on Saturday 25th May 17:17

[S600BSB]

Electro1980 said:

DeejRC said:

On the other hand I also consider it utterly perverse to whinge about voter ID. It’s a fairly logical thing to ask for and the vast vast vast majority of us have some form of it.

Maybe the vast majority to, but not all. It adds a barrier, both in terms of those without ID and those that do having to get hold of it and taking it to vote. Maybe a small barrier, but one none the less, and one that caused issues for at least two Tory MPs. For that cost it adds no real benefit given the vanishingly small risk it is supposedly tackling.

turbobloke said:

Older than the primary school playgorund club, at least in terms of mental age - they can't cope with different opinions via discussion and resort to name-calling as a means of advertising their inadequacy. Which is fine.

TB complaining about name calling? That’s rich.

Edited by Electro1980 on Saturday 25th May 17:17

TB is the older statesman of NP&E - let him complain!

[768]

Anyone know when they're announcing VAT on private healthcare, to raise money for the NHS?

[Mr Penguin]

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/wes-s...

Wes Streeting has good ideas. Hopefully he has the strength of character to fix the issues but he has the toughest job of the lot.

[hidetheelephants]

S600BSB said:

If you are old enough to serve your country in HM armed forces then you should be able to vote. Simple. Be a sound change by Labour.

Effectively you can't, as the contracted out recruitment system is so st it more or less ensures everyone is over 18 by the time they get signed up.

[S600BSB]

Mr Penguin said:

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/wes-s...

Wes Streeting has good ideas. Hopefully he has the strength of character to fix the issues but he has the toughest job of the lot.

Completely agree

[Dingu]

turbobloke said:

According to parliamentarians in the Education Select Committee, 16 year olds can't be trusted to make good decisions with a smartphone one day before their 16th birthday.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/202...

Neither can certain Tory MPs but we let them vote.

[Dingu]

DeejRC said:

I’m not a fan of allowing 16yo to vote. Frankly 16yo are utterly irresponsible muppets

As are half of the membership here.

[S600BSB]

Dingu said:

turbobloke said:

According to parliamentarians in the Education Select Committee, 16 year olds can't be trusted to make good decisions with a smartphone one day before their 16th birthday.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/202...

Neither can certain Tory MPs but we let them vote.

Don’t Tory MPs look at tractors on their smartphones?

[DeejRC]

Dingu said:

DeejRC said:

I’m not a fan of allowing 16yo to vote. Frankly 16yo are utterly irresponsible muppets

As are half of the membership here.

You have my full agreement there. I’ve long since argued that whatever the consensus opinion is on PH, then the opposite is almost certainly correct.

[chemistry]

Hants PHer said:

Let's be honest, the whole "What can I do when I'm 16, 17 or 18?" thing is a mess. You can join the military but not fight. Commit certain crimes aged 16/17 and you go to a young offender's institution (YOI) rather than prison when you're 18+. You can't marry (in England & Wales) until you're 18 but you can have sex at 16. You can't drive a car until you're 17. You can vote aged 16, as long as you're voting in Scotland or Wales in local elections. Not in England though.........

And so on. Perhaps a proper way forward would be to establish a Royal Commission with a remit to recommend how to standardise the current patchwork quilt, thereby removing it from grubby political interests.

This.

[NerveAgent]

chemistry said:

Hants PHer said:

Let's be honest, the whole "What can I do when I'm 16, 17 or 18?" thing is a mess. You can join the military but not fight. Commit certain crimes aged 16/17 and you go to a young offender's institution (YOI) rather than prison when you're 18+. You can't marry (in England & Wales) until you're 18 but you can have sex at 16. You can't drive a car until you're 17. You can vote aged 16, as long as you're voting in Scotland or Wales in local elections. Not in England though.........

And so on. Perhaps a proper way forward would be to establish a Royal Commission with a remit to recommend how to standardise the current patchwork quilt, thereby removing it from grubby political interests.

This.

Could put Prince Andrew in charge.

[Garvin]

Rachel Reeves grilled (although more akin to lightly poached than grilled) by Kuenssberg this morning. On the thorny question of her (Labour’s) financial figures not adding up and, therefore, having no option but to cut public services if taxes were not to rise she was initially evasive and then put forward that economic growth was the answer. Trussonomics to the rescue!

[119]

Garvin said:

Rachel Reeves grilled (although more akin to lightly poached than grilled) by Kuenssberg this morning. On the thorny question of her (Labour’s) financial figures not adding up and, therefore, having no option but to cut public services if taxes were not to rise she was initially evasive and then put forward that economic growth was the answer. Trussonomics to the rescue!

Not surprising though.

They haven’t got a fking clue.

None of them.

[SWoll]

119 said:

Not surprising though.

They haven’t got a fking clue.

None of them.

This. Why else do you think the Tories are in such a rush to get out of it.

Strap in boys, once Labour get in and realise just how bad things are st is going to get interesting.

[Mr Penguin]

She didn't have any answers and those were the most obvious questions to ask. She is making a rod for her own back imo by trying to please people who want a balanced budget and her membership who want more spending. If I was advising Labour then I would recommend they be very honest and say who they will upset, let the Conservatives wriggle with no majority, then have another election in 12 months time which they can sweep in with a big swing and the trust of the electorate making it solid.

[JagLover]

119 said:

Garvin said:

Rachel Reeves grilled (although more akin to lightly poached than grilled) by Kuenssberg this morning. On the thorny question of her (Labour’s) financial figures not adding up and, therefore, having no option but to cut public services if taxes were not to rise she was initially evasive and then put forward that economic growth was the answer. Trussonomics to the rescue!

Not surprising though.

They haven’t got a fking clue.

None of them.

I imagine she does have more than a clue, and knows who will be paying for it but cannot say yet.

The headline rates of income tax and NI may not change but that still leaves plenty of other areas to raise funds.

[119]

JagLover said:

119 said:

Garvin said:

Rachel Reeves grilled (although more akin to lightly poached than grilled) by Kuenssberg this morning. On the thorny question of her (Labour’s) financial figures not adding up and, therefore, having no option but to cut public services if taxes were not to rise she was initially evasive and then put forward that economic growth was the answer. Trussonomics to the rescue!

Not surprising though.

They haven’t got a fking clue.

None of them.

I imagine she does have more than a clue, and knows who will be paying for it but cannot say yet.

The headline rates of income tax and NI may not change but that still leaves plenty of other areas to raise funds.

Cannot or will not?

Do we only get to find out if they win?