Keir Starmer

[Delaney]

A question for you: Name one successful person in whatever field of your choosing where apathy was the motivating factor which helped them achieve success? You have plenty of examples to choose from so it should be an easy answer.

I'm quite sure there are many studies with a left wing flavour to explain why some are successful while others aren't and why it's someone or something else's fault why they weren't successful but the common themes in the background of virtually all the success stories I've ever read is that personal ambitions and aspirations to achieve success were the overriding and primary motivating/driving factors behind every successful person's achievements. Apathy genuinely never figured in their success as far as I'm aware.

Thousands of people in the UK on a daily basis overcome adversity, prejudice, disability etc etc in order to achieve their life's ambitions and success. They don't let obstacles stand of the way of success and will find ways around them.

By the same token,, millions of less successful people will have had similar opportunities but failed to grasp/recognise or take up the challenge for a variety of reasons but an integral part of their failure will invariably be apathy. They give up at the first hurdle whereas the successful will continue until their goals are reached.
You can list a host of reasons why some people aren't successful but it isn't the fault of the successful why others fail to achieve.

That arguably applies to the vexed GFA question too! Each time I've been asked the question regarding the GFA on here it comes across as if the person asking the question doesn't actually believe themselves that it can be resolved.
If one believes that a problem/issues are insurmountable and can't be resolved then they won't be, it's termed apathetic or the other explanation is that they don't actually want the issue to be resolved which then fits their own agenda.

If the issues are to be resolved then it needs open-minded people with a forward thinking visionary approach to the problems with a view to resolving them not Luddites with their apathy believing that they can't be resolved.

Sorry but I don't think I'll ever fit into your negative 'oh woe is me' world.

Beautiful post.

 

[ey_tony]

You do realise that by definition half the population is of below average intelligence so with the best will in the world they're not generally going to be super motivated high earners. There will obviously be some who are, but fortunately the rest of them will do the jobs you appear to disdain. If everyone had high aspirations who would be left to empty bins, drive buses, clean trains, serve food ......................etc?

Fair point but I know of several people who cannot read nor write or at best have the reading ability of a 6 or 7 year old child but they can drive cars, operate machinery safely and are successful in whatever they do including running businesses. They may not be academics but they have what was always regarded as common sense which can take people a long way in this world.

By the same token I also know plenty of allegedly intelligent people who I'd describe as lazy beggars and wasters for want of better words to describe them without offending anyone so it all depends upon their character as to what they achieve in life.

I have no issue with people who have perhaps no alternative than to empty bins or clean trains for a living because of their IQ. Someone has to do it so they are certainly not looked down upon by me. At least they are showing willing by doing a menial job in the first place so they actually have my utmost respect.
Not everyone can be budding Einsteins. It might be that they are happy in that job and although they could maybe achieve better, they are quite happy with that position. If they are happy then good for them.

However, what I do take issue with are the people who make excuses for or treat as victims those who could achieve better but can't be bothered as it would mean they would have to put effort in. It's a typical left wing mantra that the system is oppressive.
If it is then why are some people successful under that same system while other's aren't?

I have every sympathy for those who were born with limited mental or physical restrictions which makes earning a decent living impossible and they deserve society's help but I feel very little sympathy for those who can't be bothered to help themselves improve their job prospects and lives when they are quite capable of doing so.

Expecting the government to hand everything to them on a plate is not going to make Britain successful going forward.

 

[mark w]

But successful economies benefit the poor. With economic growth comes more business bringing more employment. More employment brings in more income tax VAT and it decreases the benfit dependency.

Businesses pay taxes too; the largest ones paying more than the rest of us put together. Those companies are usually headed by very highly paid people who got them to the top. I see no problem with that.

Workers have never been so well off in the modern age (excepting the current fallout from the pandemic and world recession). More holidays, better working conditions and more money to spend on those things that only 40 years ago were a dream to the average worker.

Any government, that upsets the population in any way, only lasts one term. Labour is one that finds itself with only short terms occupation of No.10. It's usually the people who decide on the future of our country. Brexit being an example of people-power. We need to encourage investors from anywhere in the world as long as the UK benefits from it.

The major questions in my mind are whether Scotland will ever gain independence and could they survive? And will Wales follow suit? I don't think losing Northen Ireland would be a bad thing, politically, geographically or economically. And it would mean we'd have another close EU trader close by.

There's something to chew on, boys.

If what you say about successful economies is true then why has the gap between the wealthy and poorest in our country grown year upon year? A successful economy in our country never benefits the poor, in fact it puts more scrutiny on them in a negative way.
As for companies paying tax, the number of tax avoidance schemes would suggest that most companies pay some tax but not the amount they should do in relation to their incomes.

 

[Delaney]

The Irish have very little interest in the GFA given that they are now contending with gangs of unknown men, from unknown origins, congragating in the centres of their villages and towns.
From what I’ve seen on social media, what’s happening in Ireland is very concerning.
There are now centres entirely fenced off, filled with thousands of foreign men who have been imported, that are being protected by balaclava wearing eastern European men, likely military trained and imported, as security.

There is a class of British people, oddly now mostly left wing, that think these international treaties and institutions are the most important thing in the world. They will not accept any thought of changing or leaving them what so ever. They also demand that we stick to the letter of these treaties at all times.
This position is bizarre and anti democratic.
Not to mention many other countries regulaly break them (France), without any repercussions.
It’s as if they hold us to higher standards and these people although a minority, are loud and very active.
They box you in and wish to keep you boxed in. You end up nothing more than an vassal state. These things become coercive and instead seek to bind is from doing what is in our best interest.

Treaties are meant to be broken and Britain will never succeed if it keeps being bogged down in these endless appeals to international law, without us being able to have a say as things change.

I find the “we must at all times, from now until the world evapourates, stick to every letter of this agreement, made and signed by some PM who we voted out 20 years ago, otherwise what would the world think of us’ brigade, annoying and unrealistic.

The hyacinth Bouquet’s of ‘our international reputation’.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

The number of tax avoidance schemes would suggest that most companies pay some tax but not the amount they should do in relation to their incomes?

The fact it's avoidance and not evasion would suggest they pay exactly what they should.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

This is ireland, but well worth 15 minutes. They're going down the pan a little quicker that we are.

 

[MrBear]

So breaking the rules is OK then. Strange as I always thought the Left preached ethical behaviour.

Who said Stammer was Left? He's at least Centre, possibly Right. Just because he's to the left of the Tories doesn't make him left. Remember when he kicked a load of Left Wing Labour MPs out to move the party right so that they would have the same kind of appeal as Blair? Any party that wants to win in this country has to be on the right, because years of Tory abuse has made us all that bit more selfish in order to get by.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Any party that wants to win in this country has to be on the right? We haven't had a right wing government for decades.

 

[mark w]

The number of tax avoidance schemes would suggest that most companies pay some tax but not the amount they should do in relation to their incomes?

The fact it's avoidance and not evasion would suggest they pay exactly what they should.

Legally but not morally, my point still stands.

 

[ey_tony]

I’m all for an open minded approach to problem solving but that also needs a modicum of common sense to stop wasted effort on seeking the unachievable.

You keep deflecting questions by blaming the mindset or opinions of others. How would you resolve the GFA question and how would you renegotiate the deal with the EU as you suggested needs to be done earlier?

It’s easy to sit at a keyboard and spout about these things at a headline level but perhaps a lot harder to actually come up with a workable solution?

...and therein lies the problem regarding the GFA.
You're approaching the issue as though it can't be resolved. It was never thought that there could be a solution prior to the GFA but it happened through negotiation and the same could be achieved with regard leaving the ECHC. It depends upon the willingness to resolve the issues.

Once again you're looking at the EU issue through the same flawed glasses.
The EU is a dreadful protectionist organisation that has access to our markets which benefits them in the form of a huge trading deficit in their favour and disadvantages the UK.
If they are alleged trading partners then why has there always been a huge trading deficit in their favour? That trading deficit should be greatly reduced by either making it easier to access to their markets or restricting the EU's access to our markets or by negotiating more favourable terms.

I can guarantee that if their access to our markets of such as their car industries was restricted it would go into rapid decline with the host nations going into recession but we don't seem to have stomach to face them down.

 

[mark w]

Any party that wants to win in this country has to be on the right? We haven't had a right wing government for decades.

We have, from Cameron to Sunak, moving more and more to the right to appease a minority in their party and in our country.

 

[RobinBHM]

From what I’ve seen on social media

Ah Ive spotted the problem................

the algorithms of social media platforms will feed you what you want to hear.....................GBnews, Mahyar Tousi and other right wing grifters is not a balance diet.

it is why you think this: "There is a class of British people, oddly now mostly left wing"

these international treaties

you mean like the ECHR that was literally drafted by Conservative MP David Maxwell-Fyfe

They will not accept any thought of changing or leaving them what so ever

only Belarus and Russia are not in the ECHR

maybe you might want to think about why that is

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Legally but not morally, my point still stands.

No, it doesn't. They are legally obliged to pay what is demanded, not more. Should they pay more? Possibly, but morals have little to do with it.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

We have, from Cameron to Sunak, moving more and more to the right to appease a minority in their party and in our country.

Those two were barely right of centre.

 

[RobinBHM]

The EU is a dreadful protectionist organisation

Please could you explain why you think the EU is "dreadful protectionist"

Any comparison with the worlds major economies, like USA, China, India, Japan etc shows the EU is not protectionist

lets look at tariffs, the EUs tariff average is 1.4% (weighted mean)


If EU was massively protectionist it would be a major trade partner with every major trading economy in the world




I find it rather frustrating that people hold these beliefs in their head and never actually bother to actually ask themselves whether they are actually true.

 

[ey_tony]

Legally but not morally, my point still stands.

How does morals come into it when they're paying what they're supposed to even if they avoid paying more by legal tax avoidance methods? They're businesses not altruists.

Morally people or businesses shouldn't be put in a position in the first place whereby they need to look for legal tax avoidance methods in order to pay less tax.
Surely that indicates that taxes are too high and if businesses become unprofitable because of taxes, who do you suppose are the losers in the long term?

 

[mark w]

Those two were barely right of centre.

I have to disagree with you, particularly Cameron with his austerity measures which decimated public services, increased poverty whilst simultaneously making the rich even richer, you can't get more right than that. Or by right do you mean racist?

 

[RobinBHM]

Those two were barely right of centre.

both were leaders of the Conservative party which was under the control of the ERG -a hard right populist faction

 

[RobinBHM]

Surely that indicates that taxes are too high and if businesses become unprofitable because of taxes, who do you suppose are the losers in the long term?

no it indicates that multi billion pound businesses have the ability to pay expensive accountants to avoid paying fair tax

do you think it is fair that a small independent coffee shop has to pay a far higher rate of tax than the big chains in the same high street?

I thought you believed in free enterprise?

 

[mark w]

How does morals come into it when they're paying what they're supposed to even if they avoid paying more by legal tax avoidance methods? They're businesses not altruists.

Morally people or businesses shouldn't be put in a position in the first place whereby they need to look for legal tax avoidance methods in order to pay less tax.
Surely that indicates that taxes are too high and if businesses become unprofitable because of taxes, who do you suppose are the losers in the long term?

Good grief, do I really have to explain why morals are important?
If a law is introduced by a morally bankrupt government it doesn't mean it's right.
"Morally people or businesses shouldn't be put in a position in the first place whereby they need to look for legal tax avoidance methods in order to pay less tax."
It's called greed, plain and simple, it certainly doesn't indicate taxes are too high.