Keir Starmer sets out what he stands for in 11,500 word essay

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

On 25/09/2021 at 18:59, zugzwang said:

The infamous Ed Stone. What were they thinking?

Actually what's written on the stone seems bang on.

The question is, do you believe any party will actually deliver on its promises ?

[Locke]

3 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

Actually what's written on the stone seems bang on.

The question is, do you believe any party will actually deliver on its promises ?

MY election manifesto is

1. Free childcare for all

2. Strict immigration controls

3. Make Britain a friendly place for business

4. Generous programmes for asylum seekers

5. Massive housebuilding plan to get Britain building again

6. Raise tariffs to protect the British worker and reduce the deficit

7. Low inflation

8. Big spending on our NHS

9. Abolish the requirement to sell your home to pay for care

10. Monthly call girls for all NEETs

11. Raise CGT to 60% to cover the deficit

12. Free trade agreements 

13. Revamp our internet architecture

 

When do I get elected?

[zugzwang]

6 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

Actually what's written on the stone seems bang on.

The question is, do you believe any party will actually deliver on its promises ?

 

They're just inoffensive generalities. The real meat was here in 2019.

You'll never be given another chance to vote for meaningful change.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

2 minutes ago, Locke said:

MY election manifesto is

1. Free childcare for all

2. Strict immigration controls

3. Make Britain a friendly place for business

4. Generous programmes for asylum seekers

5. Massive housebuilding plan to get Britain building again

6. Raise tariffs to protect the British worker and reduce the deficit

7. Low inflation

8. Big spending on our NHS

9. Abolish the requirement to sell your home to pay for care

10. Monthly call girls for all NEETs

11. Raise CGT to 60% to cover the deficit

12. Free trade agreements 

13. Revamp our internet architecture

 

When do I get elected?

Ok point taken.

[Locke]

14 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

 

They're just inoffensive generalities. The real meat was here in 2019.

You'll never be given another chance to vote for meaningful change.

Well it clearly wasn't time for real change.

[Riedquat]

22 minutes ago, Locke said:

When do I get elected?

Not by me. "Massive housebuilding" paints a pretty bleak picture of the future, so that's an immediate no. Massive suppression of artificial demand for housing, a goal of getting towards managed population decline, and then a one-off limited building programme if still needed to supply enough homes with the goal that that's it, not a constant expansion of development, those are goals that I could vote for. Although I'd need to scrutinise the means by which it's hoped they'll be achieved first too.

How are you going to be strict on immigration and generous to asylum seekers?

Edited September 27, 2021 by Riedquat

[Pop321]

1 hour ago, iamnumerate said:

Strictly speaking in Islam there is no such thing as a mixed religion family - your religion is your father's religion.  If you change to a different one in most Islamic states you have problems and some can be killed.

We would all have to agree on what is common sense. The definition varies a lot.

And in the same way the old testament has lots of rules that don't work today. ''Strictly speaking'' is the problem...and no true follower of any religion ''strictly speaks''. 

God doesn't need defending...he is real or he isn't. Anyone who feels they are doing something like killing a family member in the name of their god is using their god as an excuse. That's not true religion its an excuse. 

Brian Cox is an atheist (and therefore someone who ill informed atheists think they can rest their hat on as scientific proof) but he wonderfully explains that there is no proof of a creator but that absolutely doesn't disprove the existence of one. There is no reasonable scientific explanation of how things started...ie before they 'started'. Pragmatic response to a loaded question (and a bit of common sense in his reply) from someone who understands true knowledge and does not want to create a them and us. Unlike maths Hawkins who was happy to state (without positioning re limitations of science) that he thought from our very very very limited perception of existence in our tiny corner of the universe that he could tell others there was no creator. 

Common sense isn't common...but perhaps it is more common than we think if we are careful about our choices, impact on others and drive away extremist. 

In the meantime, although he wont get my vote, BJ will sail through the next election...if for nothing else other than when he headbutted the German player in the midriff during the charity game of football. I am no Tory but he went from a 2/10 to a 9/10 for me at that point.

 

[Pop321]

37 minutes ago, Locke said:

MY election manifesto is

1. Free childcare for all

2. Strict immigration controls

3. Make Britain a friendly place for business

4. Generous programmes for asylum seekers

5. Massive housebuilding plan to get Britain building again

6. Raise tariffs to protect the British worker and reduce the deficit

7. Low inflation

8. Big spending on our NHS

9. Abolish the requirement to sell your home to pay for care

10. Monthly call girls for all NEETs

11. Raise CGT to 60% to cover the deficit

12. Free trade agreements 

13. Revamp our internet architecture

 

When do I get elected?

Change 10 to include GenX's and I am in.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

31 minutes ago, Pop321 said:

And in the same way the old testament has lots of rules that don't work today. ''Strictly speaking'' is the problem...and no true follower of any religion ''strictly speaks''. 

God doesn't need defending...he is real or he isn't. Anyone who feels they are doing something like killing a family member in the name of their god is using their god as an excuse. That's not true religion its an excuse. 

Brian Cox is an atheist (and therefore someone who ill informed atheists think they can rest their hat on as scientific proof) but he wonderfully explains that there is no proof of a creator but that absolutely doesn't disprove the existence of one. There is no reasonable scientific explanation of how things started...ie before they 'started'. Pragmatic response to a loaded question (and a bit of common sense in his reply) from someone who understands true knowledge and does not want to create a them and us. Unlike maths Hawkins who was happy to state (without positioning re limitations of science) that he thought from our very very very limited perception of existence in our tiny corner of the universe that he could tell others there was no creator. 

Common sense isn't common...but perhaps it is more common than we think if we are careful about our choices, impact on others and drive away extremist. 

In the meantime, although he wont get my vote, BJ will sail through the next election...if for nothing else other than when he headbutted the German player in the midriff during the charity game of football. I am no Tory but he went from a 2/10 to a 9/10 for me at that point.

 

I don't think it's a pragmatic response, or a response trying to avoid division.

It's a scientific response.

I of course can't put words in his mouth. But I guess if you asked him whether or not it is likely that creation occurred in a way consistent with any of the religious creation myths then you might get a better idea of whether or not he was being pragmatic/non divisive or scientific.

It's becoming clear to most scientists that the question "was the universe created" or "was the universe created according to the religious texts" are very different questions. If you are asking what "God" is or whether it exists, then you also have to define what it is.

[Locke]

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

Not by me. "Massive housebuilding" paints a pretty bleak picture of the future, so that's an immediate no. Massive suppression of artificial demand for housing, a goal of getting towards managed population decline, and then a one-off limited building programme if still needed to supply enough homes with the goal that that's it, not a constant expansion of development, those are goals that I could vote for. Although I'd need to scrutinise the means by which it's hoped they'll be achieved first too.

How are you going to be strict on immigration and generous to asylum seekers?

Oh i forgot to add

14. Preserve the great British countryside by restricting house building

[Riedquat]

1 hour ago, Locke said:

Oh i forgot to add

14. Preserve the great British countryside by restricting house building

Ah, the irony of the post clearly flew over my head! (point 10 notwithstanding )

[zugzwang]

2 hours ago, Locke said:

Well it clearly wasn't time for real change.

Change will happen but only when it's imposed externally by our creditors. It's no longer something you can vote for.

[Locke]

1 hour ago, zugzwang said:

when it's imposed externally by our creditors.

Oh! Oh! I've seen this one!

Are you going to take out some cash and keep it at home like you suggested it was fine for citizens of the Weimar republic to do?

[Pop321]

3 hours ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

I don't think it's a pragmatic response, or a response trying to avoid division.

It's a scientific response.

I of course can't put words in his mouth. But I guess if you asked him whether or not it is likely that creation occurred in a way consistent with any of the religious creation myths then you might get a better idea of whether or not he was being pragmatic/non divisive or scientific.

It's becoming clear to most scientists that the question "was the universe created" or "was the universe created according to the religious texts" are very different questions. If you are asking what "God" is or whether it exists, then you also have to define what it is.

Understood…good point.

It wasn’t a debating point by him rather a potentially nasty loaded question by a reporter…which he neatly side stepped. He went up in my estimation and he seems to study the universe in awe….because he knows the question of ‘why’ is a different and more difficult question.

I think we all know for certain though that god has a long grey beard….that I am certain of.😉 

 

[zugzwang]

30 minutes ago, Locke said:

Oh! Oh! I've seen this one!

Are you going to take out some cash and keep it at home like you suggested it was fine for citizens of the Weimar republic to do?

 

You've never understood the Weimar hyperinflation! Both intentional and effective.

A debt default by the UK would be neither.

[byron78]

5 hours ago, Locke said:

MY election manifesto is

1. Free childcare for all

2. Strict immigration controls

3. Make Britain a friendly place for business

4. Generous programmes for asylum seekers

5. Massive housebuilding plan to get Britain building again

6. Raise tariffs to protect the British worker and reduce the deficit

7. Low inflation

8. Big spending on our NHS

9. Abolish the requirement to sell your home to pay for care

10. Monthly call girls for all NEETs

11. Raise CGT to 60% to cover the deficit

12. Free trade agreements 

13. Revamp our internet architecture

 

When do I get elected?

You'd win with a landslide with that, tbh.

[Locke]

40 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

 

You've never understood the Weimar hyperinflation! Both intentional and effective.

A debt default by the UK would be neither.

I'm sure your average pensioner cashing out their worthless life savings to buy a cup of coffee would be jumping for joy at the intentional and effective nature of the destruction of their lives.

[zugzwang]

1 minute ago, Locke said:

I'm sure your average pensioner cashing out their worthless life savings to buy a cup of coffee would be jumping for joy at the intentional and effective nature of the destruction of their lives.

 

You can either fight an enemy occupier or accede to his demands. Either way involves personal sacrifice. The strikes and riots failed to discourage the French and Germany lacked the means to defend herself.

[Kosmin]

57 minutes ago, byron78 said:

You'd win with a landslide with that, tbh.

Perhaps these two offset:

2. Strict immigration controls

4. Generous programmes for asylum seekers

 

I think he'd need something to offset this one

10. Monthly call girls for all NEETs

Perhaps "Believe all women"

[pig]

 

 

9 hours ago, Pop321 said:

And in the same way the old testament has lots of rules that don't work today. ''Strictly speaking'' is the problem...and no true follower of any religion ''strictly speaks''. 

God doesn't need defending...he is real or he isn't. Anyone who feels they are doing something like killing a family member in the name of their god is using their god as an excuse. That's not true religion its an excuse. 

Brian Cox is an atheist (and therefore someone who ill informed atheists think they can rest their hat on as scientific proof) but he wonderfully explains that there is no proof of a creator but that absolutely doesn't disprove the existence of one. There is no reasonable scientific explanation of how things started...ie before they 'started'. Pragmatic response to a loaded question (and a bit of common sense in his reply) from someone who understands true knowledge and does not want to create a them and us. Unlike maths Hawkins who was happy to state (without positioning re limitations of science) that he thought from our very very very limited perception of existence in our tiny corner of the universe that he could tell others there was no creator. 

Common sense isn't common...but perhaps it is more common than we think if we are careful about our choices, impact on others and drive away extremist. 

In the meantime, although he wont get my vote, BJ will sail through the next election...if for nothing else other than when he headbutted the German player in the midriff during the charity game of football. I am no Tory but he went from a 2/10 to a 9/10 for me at that point.

 

Common sense tells you god doesn't have a great deal to do with science.

However Dawkin type scientists think science has to explain everything. Religious fundamentalists think god tells them everything. Spot the difference.

Not so sure about Johnson. The last election the press probably overdid it but Corbyn didn't exactly help himself. I've followed a bit of the Labour conference on the radio and this time the RW machine is doing its best - scumgate and all that - but not really landing any punches while in stark comparison the government is just this bizarre omnishambles of unforced errors.

When people are phoning up radio stations claiming the country is imploding because of remainer saboteurs you realise not all conservatives will be prepared to go that far in their support.

Basically I think Johnson could really do with Everything-So-Far blowing over and having Corbyn back.

 

Edited September 27, 2021 by pig

[Riedquat]

13 hours ago, pig said:

Common sense tells you god doesn't have a great deal to do with science.

However Dawkin type scientists think science has to explain everything. Religious fundamentalists think god tells them everything. Spot the difference.

The difference being that all evidence points towards the former as being true.

[Casual-observer]

On 9/27/2021 at 10:26 AM, zugzwang said:

 

They're just inoffensive generalities. The real meat was here in 2019.

You'll never be given another chance to vote for meaningful change.

His book contained promises he couldn't have hoped to achieve seeing as he would have kept us within the EU (or rather his cabinet would have). 

The words EU and radical change don't belong in the same sentence. 

[pig]

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

The difference being that all evidence points towards the former as being true.

Fail.

Must try harder

[Riedquat]

12 minutes ago, pig said:

Fail.

Must try harder

Interesting. A reply that relies on faith over evidence to be correct.

[pig]

5 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Interesting. A reply that relies on faith over evidence to be correct.

You could for example use science to 'explain' Othello rather than bothering to watch it.