Forum menu
Awwww diddums....
A fiver says he doing his best for the party and the country by trying to whip up a rebellion on the sly.
Fantasising little twerp.
Fantasising little twerp.
You could try playing the ball.
kelvin
Full MemberYes she understands it. She still has to present policies in a way voters understand.
Yeees. But the big question- maybe overall the biggest question of all, for Labour- is whether this is the right way for them to do it.
The whole "treasury as a current account" thing is as we know completely false, but has the advantage of being very simple and relatable. But the reason the Tories use it isn't that it's simple and relatable, it's that it completely fits their goals.
Ask yourself, if this easy way of misrepresenting public finances didn't work for them, would they be using it? The answer imo is absolutely not. They wouldn't hesitate to use a different, harder, message, if that were how they get what they want. It's really just convenient for them that the simple lie is also good for their ambitions.
On the other hand, just because it's simple and relatable doesn't mean it's the only game in town. And key there is that you don't have to get people to understand everything about how it works- you just have to get people to believe it's a bit more complicated than balancing a chequebook. And that can be really simple- it's not a hard sell, to convince people that countries are big and complicated.
You can outright ridicule people for pretending it's that simple- it's a laughable concept really that only stands up because so many people pretend it's not. You can say, these people talk to you like you're stupid. They think you'll believe a country is simple but you know it's not. You can draw simple comparisons- look at America. You can say, simply and brutally, that the tories tell you this is how it is then act differently, don't trust what they say, look at what they do.
You can say, not spending can make you poorer- everyone involved with a small business understands that, everyone with a mortgage, most people renting. So you can say, austerity is renting forever so that someone else can own 5 houses, it's going out of business rather than getting a new van.
And you can say, the reason the tories use this bullshit is that they know they can never convince people to let them do what they do with the truth. You can say, sure, I could use a really simple lie too and that'd be easier I suppose but I don't need to lie to you, like they do.
(of course these are still all inaccurate ways of talking about public finance, but they're a lot closer to the reality, and they're still pretty simple and pretty intuitive, and they're still compatible enough with the tory version to not just be an alternative but to refute theirs)
So the question is, do Labour do it because they think it's the only way to fight? The best way to fight? Do they do it because- like Labour just after they left power- they're too scared and defeated to try and play by anything other than the Tories' rules? Do they think that it's the only option? Yes, they capitulated after Cameron became PM and that's done horrible damage but do they think they can never do better?
But most of all do they understand that the Tories have chosen this route not because of how it plays out to the public but because of what they can do with it.
We don’t need MMT to end homelessness,just political will.
Its not a conspiracy that politicians don’t end homelessness. It’s just what’s normal.
Not a conspiracy but a sorry state of affairs.
Yes, political will is the obstruction to making it happen but MMT is the framework that shows you can do it.
You no longer need to hang on to the idea that the government is constrained financially.
Let's see what the USA does when they hit their self-imposed debt ceiling shortly.
The telegraph talks about them actually running out of money. It's the Fed paying the cheques FFS.
It's inaccurate to even refer to it as debt.
The establishment hangs on to this tosh for dear life. Then exploits it when they want to spend - usually defence or by way of tax cuts.
Current Labour are terrified of the establishment, and the finance sector - they just don't have the balls to take these people on. So be stuck in a neoclassical lie then, and keep the poverty coming as the wealthy contribute very little and suck up all the resources.
You can say, not spending can make you poorer- everyone involved with a small business understands that, everyone with a mortgage, most people renting. So you can say, austerity is renting forever so that someone else can own 5 houses, it’s going out of business rather than getting a new van.
You tried. Better than I could do. But that still doesn’t explain it to people. They intend to pay off their mortgage eventually. They know that the size of it determines how much they have to spend servicing the debt. Every time you try a “in your lived experience” model to explain government finances it turns into inputs, outputs, debt, repayments… and you’re back to where you started. Yes you can use examples to explain borrowing to invest to improve lives, and to obtain growth, and governments of all colours have used that exact analogy, but that’s all the same model that leads people to worry about the repayments and about borrowing/spending what is unaffordable. Which for the government isn’t the case, but in the “lived experience” of voters is.
As Binners is so frequently keen in saying that xxxx in the Guardian nails it. Here is Owen Jones in the Guardian nailing it.
"But Starmer’s followers – who relished savaging Corbynism as a delusional cult – blindly cling to a leadership with no redeeming features. Why? First, because they invested everything in the idea that the “grownups were back in the room”, and that with a leader extolling competence, everything would fall into place. Instead everything fell apart, despite the easiest ride from both media and Labour MPs for any leader since Blair. Now they want someone, anyone, to blame: and here’s a clue – it isn’t them. "
Never has no-redeeming-features carried more weight.
New statesman podcast from the conference this week, is a good listen, having spoken to MPs & delegates their take on the Mcdonald resignation for example is different from what's been said on here.
Starmer sees building back labours financial credibility as the main task, as such being heckled by corbyn fans and Owen Jones isn't necessarily bad for that.
At the same time his errors in leadership are alienating some, not just jones
argee
Full Member
The election is 3 years away, we’re in the dead spot for voting within the 5 year cycle, wait for the voting intentions in early 2024 after the tories spring a few of their policies aimed at winning votes.As has been said a million times though, labour need to go away and sort out what labour is going to be come the next election, do that and then work together to win the votes required.
I 100% agree with argee
It is what people tend to do though isn't it. Pick your winner and then stick to it whatever happens.
How many people who were so into Brexit are really as strongly into it now they can see how its is panning out and how many of those would actually admit it. The silence from the Brexiters is deafening.
You need to be able to be honest with yourself first and then others. I supported Corbyn in 2017 but in the 2 years after that it was clear he had had his day. I though Starmer was a good choice after Corbyn and to against Johnson but soon realised I was wrong on that.
As Binners is so frequently keen in saying that xxxx in the Guardian nails it. Here is Owen Jones in the Guardian nailing it.
Except he doesn't really, Starmer's problem isn't "no redeeming features", he has some, at conference it's a pantomime of loyalists and the aggrieved on the left. What Jones misses is that people are sticking with Starmer because there are no natural successors who can unite the party.
You could try playing the ball.
Owen Jones
It is worth playing the ball when the man in possession is credible, but you just happen to disagree with him. In Owen Jones' case there really is no need.
pantomime of loyalists and the aggrieved on the left
This.
Conferences are like the nomination stage of a US presidential race. The candidates often feel the need to pander to their extremes to win the nomination. They then spend the rest of the run-in hastily pulling back from those pronouncements to try to win over moderates and swing voters.
Unless you're Trump running against a rightists' hate figure like Hillary Clinton.
blindly cling to a leadership with no redeeming features. Why?
Why have they? Well, they weren’t going to eject him before his first party conference, and an alternative leader hasn’t presented themselves. Now he’s had a conference… and the long process of setting out a position and policies for the next election has begun, he’s reassured some, and completely lost others. That was always going to happen, whoever is the leader. Labour don’t change leader on a whim, they let them settle in, and leave them to decide for themselves when their time is up. Despite a surprising good speech at conference, I still think he needs replacing, with a candidate that can connect with the voters in a way he is not able to, before the next election. But I’d be surprised if Labour prove to be that nimble. They need to be able to replace their leaders quicker, easier, and with less ranker. And they need to have a breadth of candidates ready to fill the post. And ambition to lead shouldn’t painted as a negative trait, as if anyone looking to do the job and become PM is “self serving” or “focussed on their own career” etc.
people are sticking with Starmer because there are no natural successors who can unite the party.
This. I can't think of anyone who wants the job and could do it this side of the next GE. Burnham won't get a seat in time.
I don't really recognize "blindly cling to a leadership with no redeeming features". I see no evidence anyone is clinging to Starmer. If he loses the next GE he'll be gone. There is no "Starmerism".
I second the recommendation for the New Statesman podcast. Mainly stuff that's already been said but contained the insight that there was *way* more heckling that we could pick up on the radio. ...and that when people were cheering Labour's past record they couldn't actually hear what they were cheering. The implication of that is a bit worrying for Labour IMHO....
MMT, it's snake oil:
https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2019/modern-monetary-theory-critique
If it wasn't snake oil everywhere would be doing it.
The argument that almost every nation in the world can make itself limitlessly wealth but chooses not to due to a global conspiracy is farcical. And you can't answer that by pointing at governments spending a bit and say "See, there's no limit on how wealthy a state with it's own currency can make itself!"
There is a limit. The limit is workers and resources (and ability to trade, and technology and…).
There is a limit.
Yup! I know. Every sane economist in the world knows. Every government in the world knows.
Rachel Reeves knows.
There is no conspiracy.
MMT is just an attempt to explain what was already known, and is already in use. Some of the claims made of what it can deliver are over blown. It is painted by some as if “adopting” it would be a step change, and earth shattering, and remove the need to make choices. That claim is snake oil, I agree.
The argument that almost every nation in the world can make itself limitlessly wealth but chooses not to due to a global conspiracy is farcical.
Lucky no one has said that then.
MMT to me has at least the opportunity to speak to voters about how finances actually work on a governmental scale though. Two things need to happen for that to be successful.
Firstly It has to be broadly true, I think the days of the simple "household" model are numbered (pandemic saw to that) but it needs to be explained simply enough that folks understand it at a basic level and secondly, the govt that sells that message have to be trusted enough that the message is believed and not rejected.
Labour fail the second part of that test for most folks currently. Any attempt by Reeves to sell any message that can be described by the Tories as "Magic money tree" or "Financial hocus-pocus" will destroy any credibility she has (and that isn't much right now*) after all, Sunak is the man that made it possible to sit at home and watch the telly while still being paid. That's a really powerful simple message for huge amounts of people, and it's one they'll happily vote for again.
*mostly, it has to be said, because most folks couldn't pick her out of line-up
MMT is just an attempt to explain what was already known, and is already in use. Some of the claims made of what it can deliver are over blown. It is painted by some as if “adopting” it would be a step change, and earth shattering, and remove the need to make choices. That claim is snake oil, I agree.
This. Although when you say "presented by some" in my experience literally anyone who mentions is using it to make the later point.
But yeah, your summary is spot on AFAICT.
but it needs to be explained simply enough that folks understand it at a basic level
Easier said than done. And which folks? Remember everyone gets a vote. That sounds condescending, but any economic concept that doesn’t map onto people’s own experiences is very hard for many people to understand, even at the “basic level”.
I think the days of the simple “household” model are numbered
Has Reeves fallen back on that? Or just made noises about being “responsible”, not wasting money, and promising not to allow limitless spending?
Lucky no one has said that then.
Can you imagine what would happen if suddenly the veil was lifted and the population at large understood that they’d been lied to for the past 50 years? The myth of governments having no money and austerity being necessary supports the wealth and power of the elite. Being honest about how money and govt finances work would turn everything on it’s head, and that’s why they don’t do it.
If that's not yer actual conspiracy theory, it's at the very least; conspiracy adjacent, I mean it's got shadowy elites, lies, wealth and power, veils being lifted, powerful motivations to hide the truth...If Dan Brown wrote this, it'd be a best seller.
David Sirota (@davidsirota) Tweeted: The $16 trillion bailout of Wall Street executives was 4 times the size of the entire $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill that's designed to reduce poverty, expand health care and save the country from climate change. https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1443802819383808000?s=20
Yeah I think daz was being a bit over dramatic. It's more that it's become much more orthodox economic thinking recently, and governments etc are inherently quite slow to change radically, if ever.
I think the stuff about 'balancing the books' is a lie though, essentially. The biggest trick the Tories have pulled is making people think they are the ones that actually do it though.
I don’t really recognize “blindly cling to a leadership with no redeeming features”. I see no evidence anyone is clinging to Starmer. If he loses the next GE he’ll be gone. There is no “Starmerism”.
There is, however, still 'Blairism'. Of which Starmer is simply the current face. Noises I'm hearing in London (from people 'in the know', not in some shithole pub) are that many in the Labour elite are thoroughly fed up with how useless Starmer has actually turned out to be. Problem is, there is no suitable replacement from their ranks at least. And word has it that there is a growing feeling amongst some, that Mandelson's continued involvement is poisonous. There may well be a schism within the elite, quite soon. You heard it here first...
There is no “Starmerism”
And herein lies a big part of the problem; he's so devoid of any real substance, that no 'cult of personality' has formed round him, like it did with Thatcher, Blair and Corbyn. So there's no strong 'brand' to try to sell to the electorate. Of course, politics shouldn't be like this, but they are, so any party has to ensure its 'brand' is strong. This is why UKIP gained so much traction. My sources tell me that the adulation Corbyn still receives from many party members, is a source of utter frustration and anger amongst the party elite; 'why haven't we got our own messiah??'
Starmer's not the messiah; he's just a very useless ****.
Yes, I think most govts are the last place you find radical thinking, and yes, the "balanced book" model although really simple and attractive, is a lie and most folks have come to that conclusion.
It doesn't mean that Labour be that Reeves or Starmer can lay about it like St.George, the public won't be convinced easily by folks who they still hold "responsible" for the 2008 crash
no ‘cult of personality’ has formed round him
Indeed, so Owens is wrong.
Noises I’m hearing in London (from people ‘in the know’
Whoopee cushionesque farting sounds?
Whoopee cushionesque farting sounds?
Mostly whining from 'centrists', actually. I think the less Blairite types are fed up with the Blairites, and there's privately quite a bit of internal squabbling going on. There's probably quite a bit of farting too; they do eat a lot of Quinoa. It's very popular on the menu at Ottolenghis.
and yes, the “balanced book” model although really simple and attractive, is a lie and most folks have come to that conclusion.
Hang on you just said it was a conspiracy theory a few posts ago. When I was talking about the public being lied to for 50 years that's exactly what I was referring to. Most of the public know that it's bollocks, but politicians (from both sides), economists, and the media continue with the fiction that 'the debt' is a problem that needs to be repaid.
I know how much you dislike David Graeber but he nailed this a long time ago. The problem is the psychology of debt, and that's something that's serves the singular purpose of the wealthy and powerful. It's not a conspiracy theory to call that out.
Unfortunately there is no current thinking in Labour that will go down the path of not balancing the books.
The evidence particularly in the USA shows multiple recessions after the occasional time they have managed to create a surplus. So that's money not flowing into the private sector.
Labour think it sells. (You could argue it didn't in 2019) - it sounds conversative, prudent and responsible at first.
Around 2018 - John McDonell met with Bill Mitchell (MMT proponent) to discuss economic policy. McDonell rejected it from what I've read.
So yeah it's not just a Left good Right bad thing.
They were advised by Simon Wren-Lewis too who has got his head up his arse quite frankly.
James Meadway was also against it and he was involved in the manifesto costings that he believes were solid.
James is okay actually. He accepts Taxes don't necessarily fund spending. But he's still on the Keynes / Borrowing side. And is clearly more qualified than me to speak!
Until the advisors push them one way or another you're stuck in the dark ages with Tax and Spend. (Pandemic spend first remember.)
Sunak gauls me in particular - with his Government doesn't have any of its own money line. Flat out lie.
Governments sitting on cash with the idea that the country has ran out of money is false, counter-intuitive and ultimately devastating for our country.
It takes a long time to turn a big ship.
stuck in the dark ages with Tax and Spend
All approaches require taxing and spending, none relies solely on taxes to fund spending.
Most of the public know that it’s bollocks, but politicians (from both sides), economists, and the media continue with the fiction that ‘the debt’ is a problem that needs to be repaid.
While agree with the continued fiction I really do not think "Most" of the public know it is bollocks.
While agree with the continued fiction I really do not think “Most” of the public know it is bollocks.
They may not understand why, but I think instinctively they know that repaying the debt is a load of rubbish, because it's not hard for them to see that when the govt needs money it's always available. What they don't know is that money could be used to make their lives better, instead of fighting wars, bailing out banks or propping up bankrupt energy companies.
Maybe you're right though, I mean OOB on this very forum, who clearly is not an idiot, seems to think it's a problem so it's entirely possible that I'm wrong.
Any simply models of how the state functions are “lies” or “bollocks” or a “fiction”.
The plan for Labour seems to be “trust us, we’ll spend wisely”, which is what voters want to hear from them. Yes, they do. It helps point the finger at the current government, and describe what they are doing in terms that will chime with the feeling that they are corrupt and wasteful.
It is worth playing the ball when the man in possession is credible, but you just happen to disagree with him. In Owen Jones’ case there really is no need.
I think that says more about you than him.
I enjoy Owen Jones’ writing. He puts passion into it. I agree with him often. But he is an unreliable and inconsistent witness.
they do eat a lot of Quinoa. It’s very popular on the menu at Ottolenghis.
Quino-annon? I don't think quinoa's that bad, but ate one of his recipes recently with hot chilies and tofu which had very serious repercussions.
I think that says more about you than him.
Well, frankly, you would say that.
Tedious.
🥱
Tedious.
Indeed. But you are being consistent at least.
Indeed. But you are being consistent at least.
Meh.
Meh.
QED.
Clive Lewis talking sense
, but I think instinctively they know that repaying the debt is a load of rubbish,
I think you give the general public too much credit. Hence why we have had 10 years of tory Austerity.
I think you give the general public too much credit.
Whereas I admit I give them too little credit. I am surprised most can even work out how to go and vote.
That was a great podcast ctk. Thanks.
I recommend everyone else gives it a listen as well.
All approaches require taxing and spending, none relies solely on taxes to fund spending
Not quite. Let's be completely clear taxes do not fund spending in central government. Currency issuer.
Central government: Spending comes first. The money has to be spent into existence before it can be taxed back out.
This is key to unraveling how it actually works.
Taxing at a local level though for sure. Currency user.
The plan for Labour seems to be “trust us, we’ll spend wisely”, which is what voters want to hear from them
Doesn't work. The evidence is there.
Not quite.
Go on then, describe how you get by without either taxes or spending… no one said which comes first… it’s not an output follows input situation (this is not the economics of the household or business).
Doesn’t work.
Hasn’t worked. It has to happen to unseat the Tories. Winning the trust of the public is essential.
Go on then, describe how you get by without either taxes or spending… no one said which comes first… it’s not an output follows input situation (this is not the economics of the household or business
That's not what you said.
You said all approaches need taxing and spending.
The order completely matters.
Apologies if I misunderstood what you are saying. For sure taxing is an essential part of the monetary system.
Hasn’t worked. It has to happen to unseat the Tories. Winning the trust of the public is essential.
Fiscal credibility rule or its ilk has been part of several attempts at Government.
In what way did it work?
It's nothing new.
The opposite happens - the media just say it doesn add up. And tear it apart.
2015 - "The party says every policy pledge in the document is funded and will be paid for without any additional borrowing"
Ed Milliband.
And both 2017/2019. Same.
This thread normally goes to sleep over the weekend allowing us all to put our toys back in our prams 🤣🤣
Just get out and ride your treddlies - SKS and the rest of them will be waiting for us next week when we really should be working 🤔😁
You said all approaches need taxing and spending.
Sorry, I just meant both are essential and can’t be done away with. Tax (and interest rates) are essential to control inflation and currency value, as well as ensuring money is circulated. No government simply takes tax and then spends the returns.
In what way did it work?
It hasn’t worked. I think I said that. At least not since 2008. It has to be made to work, and that will be next to impossible. That is the mountain Labour have to climb, but climb it they must. The biggest battle Labour lost (and there’s plenty of blame to go around here) is in allowing the mess of the credit crunch, and the unfairness of the essential bailout that followed, to stick to them, and to be falsely connected to the essential investment and minor redistribution of the Labour years. Even voters who have long forgotten what happened 14 years ago still “fear” a Labour government [ even while they sit back and watch what this government is doing ]. “It would be worse under Labour” is what you still hear when pointing out examples of economic mismanagement, corruption and poor governance going on right now, with Labour watching on, and even till the recipients of blame for things done long after they were last in office.
Just get out and ride your treddlies
Have you seen it out there?
I’m injured, and have a cold, and my kid is ill thanks to coronavirus, and I have only enough diesel left for a one way trip to the hospital if need be. I’m going nowhere today! And, yes, it’s so wet I’d probably stay in anyway.
Burnham is blinding on Any Questions. So on top of his brief as Mayor, and on wider questions. I still share the concerns that Clive Lewis mentions in that podcast up there.
Lewis is brill, give him the keys now- a real grown up.
Will catch up with AQ later.
Well worth a squiz at this from a Prof Of Accountancy
Well worth a squiz at this from a Prof Of Accountancy
That appears to just be a summary of the battles of conference. £15 minimum wage and all.
Will catch up with AQ later.
Do. I think Lewis, and myself, and others, might have to consider Burnham really isn’t the man he was as an MP. I don’t trust him yet, but his every media appearance has impressed me in recent months. A reappraisal might be needed.
Lewis is brill, give him the keys now
I would prefer Lewis as PM to Starmer (or Burnham, or Rayner), but I don’t think he will get close to being party leader, never mind to lead the country, sadly. His acceptance that the UK should be moving to real multi-party democracy, with representation for all in parliament, and that Labour should support that (as called for by its members) smacks of someone who can actually see the path we need to be on.
Have you seen it out there?
Wet n windy yup. Bloody marvellous.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1444376684761952257?s=19
Conference belter.
If Starmer can't put meat on the bones in the next two weeks with new levels of chaos (what we got now -Pandemic, Brexit, Fuel, Energy) then he will never pull ahead.
The man and his decisions are a political failiure. And it follows centrist thinking should go back to where it belongs - the Libdems. Sinking without trace.
As an aside the army coming in is clearly indicative of total private sector failure, and the state has to step in, again.
I wonder if it will be sold as a good thing.
'Course it will. Patriot trumpets ready.
Burnham really isn’t the man he was as an MP. I don’t trust him yet, but his every media appearance has impressed me in recent months. A reappraisal might be needed.
Forget Burnham he isn't going to go for it. It's a pipedream.
Lewis is brill, give him the keys now- a real grown up.
He's a lightweight, never going to last long running for leadership
I would prefer Lewis as PM to Starmer (or Burnham, or Rayner), but I don’t think he will get close to being party leader, never mind to lead the country, sadly. His acceptance that the UK should be moving to real multi-party democracy, with representation for all in parliament, and that Labour should support that (as called for by its members) smacks of someone who can actually see the path we need to be on.
You need 326+ to implement that policy, some of those legislating will be writing their own redundancy notice, not going to happen.
If Starmer can’t put meat on the bones in the next two weeks with new levels of chaos (what we got now -Pandemic, Brexit, Fuel, Energy) then he will never pull ahead.
Starmer will abide by the convention of not spoiling the other main parties conference. Pre Christmas panic buying will cause more chaos so he has more than two weeks.
Starmer will abide by the convention of not spoiling the other main parties conference. Pre Christmas panic buying will cause more chaos so he has more than two weeks.
Reasonable points.
But Johnson is about to boost his poll lead again at conference.
If Starmer can't maintain a few points out of conference under all of this - I can't see anything good coming his way.
As for Lewis being a lightweight - don't be so sure, he's got more of a fix on what to do with the Labour party than Starmer will ever have.
To be fair rone Starmer only made that committment not to give interviews to the Sun when he was campaigning to win the Labour leadership election, his supporters would argue that lying is fine if the aim is to win an election, it's a strategy which they strongly share with Boris Johnson.
Besides I'm sure that Kelvin will come along soon and point out that Starmer didn't actually give the Sun an interview, he merely approached them with a comment piece which he wrote and which they kindly published for him.
Edit : I can see why the Sun would be comfortable with publishing Starmer's unedited opinions in their paper, he simply criticises the Tory government without offering any radical alternative.
I can also understand why Rupert Murdoch might be comfortable with Starmer as UK PM
the Sun is scum
It might well be true, I think it is anyway, and if you want to ingratiate yourself with Labour supporters, it’s a sentiment you’d be wise to acknowledge. When it comes to getting readers of the Sun to switch their vote to Labour, well, I don’t know. Is the best approach to refuse the chance to connect with them? I’d like to think there is a better way than writing to them directly, in the paper they read, because it can look like consenting to all the hateful content that paper spews out day after day, week after week, year after year. I’d rather another way was found, because voters who read the Sun need to be won over, I just don’t know what other way might be as effective.
Nothing much has changed since January 2020…
https://labourlist.org/2020/01/members-left-uncertain-over-starmer-stance-on-the-sun/
I can see why the Sun would be comfortable with publishing Starmer’s unedited opinions in their paper, he simply criticises the Tory government without offering any radical alternative.
The reverse argument is that publishing the SKS article would undermine SKS within the labour party and hasten his departure
My understanding is that Starmer approached the Sun with an offer to provide them with an opinion piece, are you suggesting that the Sun is a willing party to Starmer's attempt at political suicide?
Tbh I don't think Starmer needs any help from Rupert Murdoch when it comes to undermining his own political credibility, he might seem inept in many ways but that's one thing which he seems perfectly capable of doing.
Nor do I see any reason why the Sun/Rupert Murdoch would want to see Starmer replaced as Labour leader, as you seem to suggest.
The UK is currently being led by an attention-seeking clown, despite that Starmer is so incapable of offering a credible alternative that if there was an election tomorrow Labour would almost certainly lose.
The situation is so dire that one solitary poll a couple of weeks ago which gave a Labour lead of 2% was cause for celebration. Indeed so much so that binners seemed for a while re-energised on this thread.
It was however short-lived and gloom and despondency has returned. Labour didn't even benefit from the usually inevitable party conference bounce which all political parties can expect.
I imagine that Rupert Murdoch is perfectly satisfied with the state of the Labour Party, no need to change anytime - Labour will almost certainly not win the next general election, and even if it did under Starmer a Labour government is certain not to challenge the status quo.
The UK is currently being led by an attention-seeking clown, despite that Starmer is so incapable of offering a credible alternative that if there was an election tomorrow Labour would almost certainly lose.
But the fact remains that to the many folk who vote Tory, Johnson is wildly popular. They may even think that Starmer would be "good as a PM" but they still would vote in their droves for Johnson because they like him.
Tories are apparently losing Red wall seats to ... The greens!
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1444937938157117441?t=FC7YgP4pUy6dbuCsr7uTtA&s=19
I'm in full-on red wall land, and I find this one hard to run with.
In spite of their public words the Greens are hard core Eurosceptic that's why Farage voted for them so it seems an obvious place for a Left leaning leaver to go.
https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/eu.html
"EU301 The present EU structures are fundamentally flawed. Their remoteness has resulted in a lack of accountability which is working against the interests of people and the environment."
Plenty more in that vein.
Mind you, I'm not convinced that's the explanation here.
Interesting. I'm not sure about that either. Who knows!
You would think most Wallers would associate Greens with lefty 'claptrap' as I heard one former Labour voter say.
Lefty claptrap from a traditional Labour voter! (Erm why did you ever vote Labour?)
Red wall seats maybe also contain significant amounts of Corbynite lefties who are jumping ship to the greens now Starmer has nailed his centrist colours to the mast.
It's quite simplistic to think of red wall seats as being purely working class/socially conservative.
Or the poll is bollocks!
I think I was the only Corbyn voter in Bassetlaw, certainly on my street!
😉
Or the poll is bollocks!
They sort of all are.
But a small shift from Conservative to Labour, and a shift from Labour to the Green Party, wouldn’t be surprising right now, would it.
They are but they're the only measurement we have between elections.
Got to keep this thread going because if we leave it to Starmer it will just fade off the server.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1446033687833890817?t=JHcuN3ubBTQV0KTJICWRmg&s=19
.
But a small shift from Conservative to Labour, and a shift from Labour to the Green Party, wouldn’t be surprising right now, would it.
Not surprising but still disappointing that the Green party don't poll better but then I guess the traditional voters vote for traditional parties and trust those parties to manage the country whereas they would probably, and understandably, see the Greens as a complete unknown
It's telling that no-one has had anything to say about Special K for 3 days. Even the Guardian, which did more than any other paper to destroy Corbyn (according to David Graeber), is now putting the boot in:
Starmer’s gone quiet cos he’s been too busy thinking of ways to reignite the AS argument and the factional battles that will result from it. It’s literally the only thing he’s good at.
Why did anyone have to leak the report anyway?
It’s telling that no-one has had anything to say about Special K for 3 days. Even the Guardian, which did more than any other paper to destroy Corbyn (according to David Graeber), is now putting the boot in:
He's become insignificant in terms of news (s)tories.
Johnson being on holiday caused more debate than anything Starmer has said in the last three weeks.