Forum menu
Not Starmer. 2019 manifesto.
He’d probably have dropped that too if he’d had half a chance.
The good ideas came in 2017 and 2019. Starmer doesn’t have any of his own.
So it would be better if he didn't try to implement this?
Did Johnson just accuse Starmer of corruption in PMQs, then not withdraw it? Pretty noisy, so I might just have missed it - any penalty if he didn't withdraw it?
No, he (claims he) said “mish-conduct”. The man’s a joke.
No, he (claims he) said “mish-conduct”.
Yes it was a hilarious joke based on Starmer having done some work for Mischon de Reya law firm.
Top bants there from the combover.
No, he (claims he) said “mish-conduct”. The man’s a joke.
Ah - very droll. He sounded poorly - hope he gets worse soon.
Just seen the highlights from PMQs, someone put an extra shot of expresso in shot of expresso in starmers coffee today
Johnson is failing to get a grip on the sleaze thing and Starmer seems much more comfortable on this than anything else
Both Starmer and Hoyle giving johnson a kicking.
Made my day.
You know how Starmer made a point about the Randox documents… in a “we’ll believe it when we see it” way…
https://twitter.com/pippacrerar/status/1460983127153823746?s=21
At this rate the Tories will ditch Johnson before the GE, whch actually kinda sucks for starmer because as an ex QC he seems most comfortable going after the sleaze angle- and you know that johnson is in up to his nuts in all kinds of corruption
Both Starmer and Hoyle giving johnson a kicking.
Made my day.
Caught a clip of Hoyle on the news headlines. Made me happy.
The sleeper has awakened
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1461248186320891917?t=U8zs53KVPXGtAcgRdqTZ1Q&s=19
A key point and would make it even more obvious, i.e. an MP getting paid £100,000 for 4 hours work a year. I wonder why anyone would pay that much for 4 hours work…
Someone who’s far better with words has put it better than either you or I could…
https://twitter.com/frankcottrell_b/status/1461267618665574409?s=21
Hoyle finally growing a pair with Johnson just furthers the idea the Tories are getting ready to ditch him, IMO.
Now Graham Brady has been dragged into 2nd jobs row, he might well be soliciting those letters
fwiw I dont think Johnson is done yet, the Daily Mail just fired Jordy Greig who was antibrexit and has been instrumental in attacking Johnson lately, Dacre is heading to OFCOM & his protege is being brought in to replace Greig
FFS! Is that it?!
https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1461369398485303303?s=21
Even I’m starting to miss Grandads shouty 10 second YouTube rants. At least he meant it.
There’s a general feeling in the north about this total betrayal, which registers on the scale as ‘apoplectic’ with many people, that we’re having the piss taken out of us and this is the best he can muster
And this is in the constituencies he needs to win back
Absolutely ****ing clueless!
Will the last person out of the Labour Party office kindly turn off the lights. I think they’re done
Andy Burnham was quoted on R4 news about it, Starmer wasn't even mentioned.
BBC News had Starmer saying levelling up was a Tory luevsnd you couldn't believe a word they said.
For once I thought he was getting the message and tone right. Very dependent on how widely it gets reported, but more people probably saw it than read that thst lame Twitter post
Starmer was looking way more confident on the news earlier than he has in a while.
See his HR is at least at 95bpm here
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1461321825951096839?t=eh7Z4Ygrxa37MnclJyyr4Q&s=19
Oh really? (jokes aside you would've at least expected a few weeks of the Tories on an immediate downtrend.)
https://twitter.com/electpoliticsuk/status/1461642155164938240?s=20
Corruption doesn't stick - maybe for a few days.
Absolutely ****ing clueless!
Will the last person out of the Labour Party office kindly turn off the lights. I think they’re done
And that's why Labour polling is crap.
Starmer doesn't do politics.
(He'd be okay helping you sort a spreadsheet for areas with limited cycle infrastructure.)
jokes aside you would’ve at least expected a few weeks of the Tories on an immediate downtrend.
Tbh I'm surprised it lasted that long. Once the Tories backtracked on Paterson I expected them to recover fairly quickly in the opinion polls.
One greedy individual who has been caught out is unlikely to damage a political party, whatever hue it might be, but the party throwing its weight behind him is likely to cause a public backlash.
Johnson has corrected his error over Paterson and whilst there might still be a few ripples to be felt I think it is unlikely to cause lasting damage.
After all the opposition hasn't changed due to this debacle, and an effective opposition is the only sure way to defeat Johnson/the Tories. Relying on Johnson's regular blunders to defeat the Tories is a particularly poor strategy.
Johnson has been performing blunders throughout his political life. It didn't stop him from becoming leader of the Tory Party, becoming Prime Minister, and easily winning a general election.
Same polling data saw Starmers approval above Johnsons for first time in a long time
https://twitter.com/OprosUK/status/1461427813798629377
its bascically saying theyre level given margin of error
now obviously that isnt good enough midterm and while its an improvement on 2019 it likely means a Tory government for the forseeable
Whilst personal approval polls are great fun the only question that actually matters is, "how would you vote if there was a general election tomorrow?".
Btw Priti Patel in fourth place is scary.
And Liz Truss in fifth just funny.
Sunak in first place is scary; balance the books = more austerity.
His personal circumstances mean he's totally insulated from the effects of any policies which are implemented on his watch.
He's equally as corrupt as any other tory - just in a different way.
Johnson has been performing blunders throughout his political life. It didn’t stop him from becoming leader of the Tory Party, becoming Prime Minister, and easily winning a general election.
All of your text rings true Ernie.
But I'm still expecting a bit of fatigue to gnaw away at their polling eventually. If not now - when?
Sunak in first place is scary; balance the books = more austerity.
Yup.
Although to be fair all Tory politicians are generally well insulated from the effect of their economic policies. Which is of course why they fear a left-wing Labour government so much.
Sunak in first place is scary; balance the books = more austerity.
His personal circumstances mean he’s totally insulated from the effects of any policies which are implemented on his watch.
He’s equally as corrupt as any other tory – just in a different way.
Absolutely, this incompetent idiot is dressed up as some sort of super economist.
He's exactly the opposite; tells lies about macro-economic policy, distorts the truth about growth and expectation, chief Brexiteer - and architect of the eat out to help out.
And as you say one of the Tory conference fools that talks up tightening the government's belt as though it's a sound economic thing to do.
He's terrible but has a polished media image.
Meritocracy doesn't matter with the Tories.
He’s terrible but has a polished media image.
Very much like Cameron then.
Sunak did a really good job of distancing himself from dropping HS3 & NPR, despite the exchequer being apparently a driving force behind dropping it.
He couldn’t do that without the cabinet, not least the PM, being happy to go along with it. Succession.
From his first speech as an MP:
https://twitter.com/mrdandonoghue/status/1461261805863555081?s=21
Now Starmer won't say whether he thinks Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson. This is a man for whom he served in the shadow cabinet.
What does it say about Starmer's judgment if he now thinks his party leader wasn't fit to be PM, when compared to the narcissistic buffoon we now have in power.
I meant mainly it just says he's too scared to upset the Daily Mail/his Blairite backers by saying anything positive about Corbyn. Just comes out looking weak and spineless, again.
Well it sends a clear message to voters that they were right to vote Tory.
But perhaps he should be a bit more self-critical and admit that as chief architect of Labour's second referendum election policy he bears a personal responsibility for Johnson's huge majority.
Perhaps the “Johnson vs Corbyn” election is long behind us, and telling the voters now that they should have chosen Corbyn, telling them that they voted the wrong way in 2019 (I think they did), isn’t the way for the new leader to signal to them that they have been listened to, and the party has changed. The focus needs to be “we get that you liked what Johnson was saying, but he is letting you down, his promises mean nothing, he doesn’t serve you he serves himself and his contacts”… all focus should be on the choices voters have coming their way. It is highly likely that voting for Johnson again will be one of those choices. Voting for Corbyn won’t be.
I also wouldn't be able to say whether Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson.
I think he would have been pretty useless in fact. I would still MUCH rather have a useless Corbyn (and his associated party and polices) than a useless Johnson but that is not the question.
I’d take Corbyn over Johnson any day. But then I voted Labour when Corbyn was leader. Telling me I was right, wise, smart, conscientious, righteous for backing the loser might make me feel good, but so what? If Starmer nails himself to the mast of Corbyn’s ship now, he’s sunk. The answer is to de-personalise it… “any Labour government would be better for the country than any Conservative government”. Lecturing the voters that they should have backed someone who is now not even a Labour MP doesn’t seem wise.
How often does Johnson have to field questions about Hague or Howard as alternative PMs?
I also wouldn’t be able to say whether Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson.
He would have been a magnitude better.
He might have had flaws but he's honest and decent enough to have put the country in the right place.
There is nothing positive about Johnson.
I would still MUCH rather have a useless Corbyn (and his associated party and polices) than a useless Johnson but that is not the question.
That is just a messy way of saying you thought Corbyn would've have been better. No need for gritted teeth.
I also wouldn’t be able to say whether Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson.
Yeah but I am fairly confident that you are not leader of the Labour Party.
I have no idea who you voted for last election kerley or who you are likely to vote for next general election, but I do expect the leader of the Labour Party to be a Labour Party supporter.
At least Tony Blair came out and said he would rather a left-wing Labour party lost. I guess it would be weird for Starmer to say that when he would have been part of the government.
"He has also said he does not think the big six energy companies should be brought into public ownership, in a rejection of the sweeping nationalisation Labour planned in 2019."
It is interesting that the Guardian should describe it as simply "a rejection of the sweeping nationalisation Labour planned in 2019" when much more significant is that it is a rejection of Starmer's own personal pledge he made in 2020, never mind 2019.
Starmer pledge number 5 in fact :
Common ownership
Public services should be in public hands, not making profits for shareholders. Support common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water; end outsourcing in our NHS, local government and justice system.
The one thing that is absolutely certain about Starmer is that he cannot be trusted at all on any commitments he has made in the past, is making now, and will make in the future.
Voters will never be in a position to know what to expect from Starmer, apart from dishonesty.
He will say whatever he feels he needs to say to gain support without any actual commitment whatsoever.
British politics deserves better.
British politics deserves better.
Given our recent voting record I'm not sure we do 🙂
The whole system needs a massive shake up but that won't be happening anytime soon
He's also going to 'balance the books' guys, austerity isn't dead yet.
The abandonment of energy privatisation is deeply disappointing. Now do freedom of movement of workers…
The abandonment of energy privatisation is deeply disappointing.
The wholesale nationalisation isn't a panacea, just nationalise a chunk, then use it as a comparator and drive the others to meet or exceed the performance of the nationalised bit. Doesn't get everyone overexcited about lefty sweeping nationalisation, reduces cost and risk, makes room for more innovation, achieves the outcomes desired.
The one thing that is absolutely certain about Starmer is that he cannot be trusted at all on any commitments he has made in the past, is making now, and will make in the future.
Voters will never be in a position to know what to expect from Starmer, apart from dishonesty.
Completely.
Though Starmer acting in the interests of the market is absolutely no surprise.
He's all about the status-quo. He sees that as the path to centrist victory.
Shortly everything will be in such a mess anyone with half a brain will realise we can't carry on with the same ideology - which Starmer is intent on.
Doesn’t get everyone overexcited about lefty sweeping nationalisation, reduces cost and risk, makes room for more innovation, achieves the outcomes desired.
Because the market has served us so well in that regard ?
Doesn’t get everyone overexcited about lefty sweeping nationalisation
You have completely missed the point BnD it has nothing to do with whether nationalisation is a good idea or not, it is about honesty and trust.
When he was standing for an election Starmer made a pledge to his potential voters that he would support the common ownership of energy, and let us remember that a pledge is defined as a solemn and binding promise.
With the election out of the way he then argues the complete opposite a few months later.
He should never had made the pledge in the first place if he had no intention of actually keeping to it.
It is completely impossible for voters to know what voting for Starmer actually means. A healthy functioning democratic process requires voters to know as much as possible what they are actually voting for.
Starmer will say one thing to Labour Party members and then the complete opposite to members of the CBI, it really is the worse from of opportunism, and it needs to be driven out of British politics.
The only way to drive it out is by attaching a heavy electoral cost to it, as the LibDems to their regret have discovered.
Yep, Serco reduces cost and risk, makes room for more innovation, achieves the outcomes desired.
then use it as a comparator and drive the others to meet or exceed the performance of the nationalised bit.
The problem, of course, is the private approach would "outperform" the public one when based on the simple short term approach normally used. For example the binning off of storage facilities saved a lot of money in the short term but means they cant handle surges in prices as well or even worse temporary disruption to supply which may well occur.
Likewise if you sack half the maintenance staff you do well for a few years until the debt builds up and everything gets very costly.
I also wouldn’t be able to say whether Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson.
Jesus. He would have been miles better, by a long, long way. Unless of course you think a lying, lazy, selfish and corrupt narcissist is preferable to someone who is honest, compassionate, hard working and actually gives a shit about normal people? FFS get a grip.
good summary here
In his address to the Confederation of British Industry’s (CBI) annual conference today, Sir Keir Starmer has said that Labour is “open to business”.
He said that Labour is both the party of work and the party of business, and that British Industry must be able to compete in an “ever-competitive world”.
Sir Keir said he would work with the private sector to “put right” Britain’s failure to be as “dynamic” as possible, referring to the partial role of Harold Wilson’s government in establishing the CBI.
He also argued that his vision was of a “future radical Labour government that will not provoke division”.
In a clear pushback at the prime minister’s allusion to pandemic supply issues as the key reason behind ongoing economic issues, Sir Keir highlighted that “even before the pandemic”, the Conservatives were not tackling the UK’s productivity.
“Of course, the Government has its own answer to the productivity problem,” he says, jibing that “He’s called Geoffrey Cox.”
He described the government’s decision to scrap the eastern leg of HS2 as a ”betrayal of the North” and of “economic regions”.
He said a “national reset” is needed in the wake of Covid-19 and Brexit, and that collaboration between industry and the government was vital to remake Britain’s economy so that it is fit for the future”.
Alluding to Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey’s comments earlier today, Sir Keir said that: “The only f-words I will be using are foreign investment, fair trade, fiscal policy and fiduciary duty.”
“We really don’t think the solution to every problem is just to throw cash at it,” he complained, lauding his shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves’ “brilliant” work in the wake of the “missed opportunity” of the government’s October budget.
He said the government’s lack of “industrial strategy” and “no business plan” was behind the “missed opportunity”.
He echoed a line from his party conference speech, saying that: “We all have a duty to make Brexit work.”
He summarised several policies that he argued would “fill the holes” in the current government’s post-Brexit strategy in order to ensure British firms maintain their competitiveness while maintaining “our interests”.
He explained: “Labour would also look to find an agreement on mutual recognition of conformity assessments across all sectors. That would mean our producers would no longer have to complete two sets of tests. There would be no need for two certification processes to sell goods in both the UK and the EU.
“We would seek regulatory equivalence for financial services, and mutual recognition of professional qualifications, because we absolutely recognise the importance of looking after our world-class financial and professional service businesses.
“We would seek to maintain Britain’s data adequacy status, making our data protection rules equivalent to those in the EU, to secure UK digital services companies’ competitiveness.
“We’d also seek a better long-term deal for UK hauliers to ease the supply chain problems we are seeing.”
He accused Boris Johnson of being more interested in “pantomime disputes” than leadership.
good focus on education too (the only way to really 'level up' imo)
My message for today is clear. As I said in my speech at Labour party conference: Labour is back in business. The dual meaning is entirely deliberate.
We are and we always were, the party of work. Founded in the workplace, we are the party of working people. And that means Labour is also the party of business.
The first annual report of the CBI, back in 1965, made a point that still stands today… “The whole future of Britain”, it reported, “rests upon the success of industry”… “industry must be dynamic, competitive and profitable to compete in an ever increasingly competitive world.”
Those words, half a century old, could have been written yesterday. Britain is not as dynamic, competitive and profitable as we need to be. Today I want to discuss how we can create a contract together to put that right.
In a way we have always been bound together, the Labour party and the CBI. The CBI was founded, at least in part, as a response to a Labour government.
Your commemorative book, The CBI: 50 Years of Business Innovation, notes that the radical policies of the Wilson government “resulted in sharply divided tactics among members”.
Today, I hope to give you a flavour of a future radical Labour government that will not provoke division. Because if you get above the political fray and survey the British economy over a longer timeframe, we have a familiar and a persistent problem. We still haven’t cracked productivity.
I heard what the Prime Minister said this morning. But I’m afraid even before the pandemic, Britain went through the worst decade for productivity growth since the Industrial Revolution. That’s staggering.
Of course, the government has its own answer to the productivity problem. He is called Geoffrey Cox. But we might need a little more than that. It’s not as if we don’t know the answer.
We need increased business investment. A better capital stock and improved infrastructure. We need to embrace new technology. We need to lift our export performance. We need cities outside the south-east to become economic powerhouses.
Which is why it is so devastating to see the government rip up its promises in relation to HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail. These are not just train lines. They are lifelines for businesses and commuters.
And it’s not just a betrayal of the North. It’s a betrayal of the economic potential of those regions, denying them the growth that your Director General, Tony Danker, has championed so effectively, including in his speech this morning.
And if we are really serious about improving productivity, then, most of all, we need investment in our people to ensure they have the skills that are right for the modern economy.
After the pandemic and after Brexit, we need a national reset. The business community and the political world need to work together. We both have a job to do. That job is to remake Britain. And that means remaking Britain’s economy so it is fit for the future.
Relations between politics and business have not always been warm. The Prime Minister himself has not exactly been complimentary. I can promise you that the only F words I will be using are foreign investment, fair trade, fiscal policy and fiduciary duty.
I know we have bridges to build, and I want to start a dialogue with you here today. I want to start that conversation by thanking you all for the part you’ve played, especially in the last 18 months, where your incredible resilience and hard work has helped protect livelihoods and communities.
Your leadership has made a difference. And the reputation of our businesses has been enhanced. So let me describe how I see my side of the contract.
Getting our economy to grow, getting to grips with the problem of productivity. And giving business a generation of young people ready for work. Any contract needs to be based on stability.
In tax policy, regulation and the terms of trade, you want as much certainty as you can get. You want independent institutions. Treaties that are respected, contracts that are enforced.
After Covid and Brexit, our public finances are in a fragile state. In her recent conference speech Rachel Reeves, my brilliant shadow chancellor, made her commitment to fiscal discipline abundantly clear.
Our five fiscal rules make it plain that we will never spend money just for the sake of it. We really don’t think that the solution to every problem is to throw cash at it.
And just as every one of you scrutinises the cost side of your business, constantly asking yourself if investments are paying off, we will do the same on behalf of the tax paying public.
The problem we face today is that we have no industrial strategy, no business plan. The Budget was an opportunity to address that, and remake Britain. But it was an opportunity missed.
In Tony Danker’s own words: “it isn’t bold enough to deliver the high investment, high productivity economy the government seeks”. I think putting a cap on investment, as the government has, is a false economy. It’s a cap on ambition and a cap on productivity.
There is nothing that suggests a government getting to grips with the scale of the challenge. You can see all around us what happens when a government has no plan. And it’s happening now. Prices going up. Energy getting more expensive. Taxes rising £3,000 more per household by 2026. And with the effects of Brexit and Covid working through, a shortage of labour.
And the really irritating thing about this is, that it was so predictable. Lord Bilimoria himself warned in June that a perfect storm of economic problems was brewing. He pointed to HGV drivers specifically, as well as butchers, brewers, and welders.
It’s the same in professional services and the same in manufacturing. This is, in part, about Brexit because the government thinks all it has to do is say the words “Get Brexit Done.” It has absolutely no plan to Make Brexit Work.
Just to be clear, Labour is not planning a re-match. Brexit has happened and we are not going to re-join. But it is obvious that a poorly thought-through Brexit is holding Britain back. It is astonishing to see a government that negotiated a treaty, complaining that the deal they signed doesn’t work.
Wait till the PM finds out who negotiated the Northern Ireland protocol. I wish he would stop picking fights for the sake of it, and just get on with it.
Labour will work with business on this. We should carry out a transparent and honest analysis together of all the holes in the Prime Minister’s deal. We need to work out how we can fill them fast, without the risk of trade wars, without erecting further barriers to co-operation with our allies and without the need for even more years of painful negotiations.
Of course, decisions that have been made must be respected, and negotiations will be tough. And this is a message to those on both sides of the channel. We all have a duty to make Brexit work, so bear with me as I give you some concrete examples of what we would do.
We would negotiate a new veterinary agreement for trade in agri-products. This would have two benefits. First. It would help to get through the impasse over the Northern Ireland protocol. Second, it would cut red tape and barriers for exporters across the UK.
Labour would also look to find an agreement on mutual recognition of conformity assessments across all sectors. That would mean our producers would no longer have to complete two sets of tests. There would be no need for two certification processes to sell goods in both the UK and the EU.
We would seek regulatory equivalence for financial services and mutual recognition of professional qualifications because we absolutely recognise the importance of looking after our world-class financial and professional service businesses.
We would also seek to maintain Britain’s data adequacy status. That would mean that our data protection rules would continue to be deemed equivalent to those in the EU. Which would, in turn, make UK digital services companies more competitive.
And, finally, we would seek a better long-term deal for UK hauliers to ease the supply chain problems we are seeing. This is a plan that follows closely what many of you have told me is needed to move us towards the closer trade arrangement that we need with the EU.
I believe all of this is achievable by robustly defending our interests and patiently negotiating. There is one further element – leadership. Trust matters in international negotiations but with this PM that ingredient is missing.
Instead, what we get is a series of pantomime disputes, which is no good for British business or for the British public. And no help at all as we tackle the task of remaking Britain.
Now, let me come to where the government most needs to keep its side of the contract. To ensure that our people get the skills they need. The battle for talent will be one of the defining issues of the 21st Century
As I travel the country and I talk to businesses, I am constantly struck by how often I am told about skills shortages. A recent survey showed that 80% of businesses were worried about skills. The world has changed. The demand of skills has changed.
Business leaders tell me that the skills we need today to be more productive are critical thinking, creativity, communication and the ability to work in a team. And, in my view, we don’t value technical and vocational skills nearly enough.
So it is no wonder that this country does much worse in computer skills than our economic rivals. No wonder that fewer than half of employers believe young people have the digital skills required. Think of all the students we effectively abandon at the age of 18. 40% leave education without essential qualifications
A lot of these students could really flourish if they received a high-quality technical training. Yet funding per student in further education and sixth form colleges has fallen by 11 per cent in real terms since 2010. And, that’s why today, I am announcing my new council of skills advisors. David Blunkett, working along with the tech entrepreneur Praful Nargund and the skills expert Rachel Sandby Thomas to recommend the change we need to ensure everyone leaves education, job ready and life ready.
My council will explore how to ensure that young people are literate in the technology of the day. That’s why we would add digital skills to the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic. And I also want my council to advise me on how we can lift the sights of all pupils. We must encourage their ambition and be more ambitious for them.
In my own constituency there is a wonderful primary school, Rhyl Primary school, which runs a great programme called Raising Aspirations. Employers like Mercedes, Derwent, Google, the Ritz and The Crick Institute inspire the children to think about the jobs they might do, jobs they might never have considered before or even heard of.
Just recently the kids met Lewis Hamilton to learn about engineering, where we have a significant skills shortage I can’t tell you what a difference this kind of thing makes. Better skills are vital if we are to improve productivity and economic growth. That’s why getting the next generation ready for work will be my mission as leader of the Labour party.
So skills policy is the first line in the first chapter of Labour’s plan for good business. It’s a plan that I want you all to be part of. It’s a plan that will include a policy for start-ups. We would create 100,000 new businesses over the next five years by boosting the Start Up Loans Scheme.
And let me turn next to business rates. Because we know we can’t achieve the investment we need if the tax burden is not fair. The Conservatives promised fundamental reform four times, and each time all we’ve got is tinkering around the edges. Labour will not just walk around this problem. We will scrap and replace business rates with a much fairer alternative to incentivise investment.
And we want public bodies to give more contracts to British firms. Those contracts will raise social and environmental standards. Our buy, make and sell more in Britain policy will weigh not just the cost and quality of a contract but also the value it brings to our communities. Make it here – that is how we will remake Britain.
Now, we are meeting a week after the limited progress made at COP26 in Glasgow. It’s obvious we need to do more if we are to protect our planet – that is our solemn duty. But, when I think of the climate crisis I don’t just think of duty. I think of the huge opportunity. Like Joe Biden, when I think climate crisis, I think jobs.
If we invest in manufacturing electric vehicles, if we increase investment in our ports, and finally turn our world-leading status in offshore wind into jobs, then the future can be green, fair and prosperous. That is why Labour is committed to the investment needed.
Our climate investment pledge amounts to £28bn a year until 2030. We would commit £6bn over a decade to upgrade every home that needs it. That creates about half a million jobs. In the workplace, we would help fund the investment in the giga-factories we need for electric car manufacturing. What we need now is a sector-by-sector plan. For the car industry. For the steel industry. For all industry.
Our competitors are already doing it. We can’t afford not to. This is our side of the contract. To run a stable government and a tight ship. To equip the next generation for work. To invest in British business, and to create a wave of high-skilled jobs.
Of course, on your side of the contract, there are responsibilities too. To invest in the long term. To contribute as we strive towards net zero. To contribute to your local communities. To support your workforce with fair pay and flexible working.
When I was reflecting on this opportunity to speak to you today, I thought of my dad. He was a skilled industrial worker. A tool maker in a factory. And the thing that I really remember from my dad was how hard he worked. His industry. Your organisation and mine both have a synonym for work in our titles. Industry and Labour. That is why we must work together to remake Britain for the future.
Our mutual interest, our shared passion. To use the full potential of our nation. To maximise the contribution we can all make. The next government will inherit a big job. To get Britain fit for the future. I look forward to working with you. To remake Britain.
So which bits did he actually mean?
Btw pledge number 5 hasn't been deleted from Starmer's own website :
https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/
Why would anyone trust the sincerity of a man who can't be arsed to update his own website so that it no longer contradicts him?
Starmer clearly, with some justification, takes people for suckers.
Trickle down and the railway. It could have been written by any party.
The problem, of course, is the private approach would “outperform” the public one when based on the simple short term approach normally used. For example the binning off of storage facilities saved a lot of money in the short term but means they cant handle surges in prices as well or even worse temporary disruption to supply which may well occur.
East coast mainline was able to compete & turn a profit for taxpayers,
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/04/east-coast-mainline-fury-reprivatisation-plan
so it could definitely work
He also argued that his vision was of a “future radical Labour government that will not provoke division”.
Apart from with the left-wing of our own party.
Making it clear that government investment need not be capped at all, if it is investment that will result in economic advantage. Damn straight. Not a magic money tree... more that if you want forests, you need to get on and plant trees.
Taking the right line on "making Brexit work" as well, including new agreements with the EU, especially certifying once for both markets. Next year's move to UKCA could cause real economic damage, and pushing the right alternative approach now is welcome... no doubt he'll still be called "Captain Hindsight" by left and right alike when everyone else wakes up to that problem.
Focus on post GCSE education, when the government have cut funding per a student in this area, also a good thing for this speech. Employers/industry have both a role and a need here. UK government needs to increase investment here, and members of the CBI know it, will benefit from it, and need to push for it, and contribute and get involved more with education of students at this age.
Investment talk as regards climate change all sounds on the mark as well. Even if there are members of his front bench who could explain the need for it in ways that engage the listener 10x better than his delivery today will.
I wish he's stop talking about his dad.
I wish he’s stop talking about his dad.
Kind of agree, but does it serve the purpose of drawing attention to the start difference between his dad and, you know...
Our five fiscal rules make it plain that we will never spend money just for the sake of it. We really don’t think that the solution to every problem is to throw cash at it
RIP.
Macro-economic failure.
The trouble is everything is in dire need of money you stupid Tory cloning regressive fool.
For Kerley, please compare and contrast and then let us know whether you still don’t know if Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson. I hope the rightwing ***** in the Labour Party are happy with themselves.
https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1462731561862844419?s=21
https://twitter.com/toryfibs/status/1462780710356504576?s=21
Jeez. 🙁
We could do a whole thread on comparisons like that Dazh. Corbyn would have been head and shoulders above Johnson as a PM, in my opinion.
So would Starmer... but I'd still rather Labour changed it's leader to one who can campaign, enfuse, and win over the electorate... Starmer had one good shot in 2017. And then should have moved aside. I don't think Starmer should even get the one shot at a general election! But we're stuck with him for now it seems. More importantly, and depressingly... we're stuck with Johnson.
Starmer had one good shot in 2017
That should have been “Corbyn had one good shot in 2017”. Obviously.
Forgive me. Forgive me. Forgive me.
Wow! I know it was reported that Starmer had to have beginners economics lessons from his shadow treasury ministers when he took over, but this is naivety on another level. Even Blair never went quite as far as this Thatcherite trickle down nonsense.
https://twitter.com/schneiderhome/status/1462728415325433859?s=21
Tony Blair was smart enough to leave boring and more complicated stuff like economics to Gordon Brown.
Starmer presumably feels that surplus value is more of a hands-on topic for him.
Although surprisingly he didn't seem to have mentioned it during his leadership campaign.
Starmer is arguing for drilling more surplus value out of the working class, absolute and relative, and then 'everyone' will be happy. He's not even a very convincing tory.
I still think Starmer can win but my god he's a ****.
“Secure, well paid, skilled work is not separate from good business. It is the driver of good business. When business profits, we all do.”
I’m not sure why people are reading “trickle down economics” or “drilling more surplus value” out of workers into this. It seems perfectly sound to me. If Labour is the party of the worker, it is the party of helping workers build on their skills, of being paid fairly, of security and rights in the workplace. A Labour government will not bring an end to capitalism, or end employer/employee relationships. Successful businesses who properly value their employees, and benefit from them being better skilled, better paid and more secure (in law not just at the whim of the employer) should be one of the key aims of any government, no? Or are we going to pretend you are either pro-business, or pro-worker, and you can only be one or the other?
I’m not sure why people are reading “trickle down economics” or “drilling more surplus value” out of workers into this.
This
When business profits, we all do.
Is pretty much the definition of trickle down economics.
So Mike Ashley isn't a very good businessman then? How come he has been so successful?
High profits do not necessarily equate with high wages.
Anyone who suggests that making rich people even richer helps poor people become less poor, as Ronald Reagan famously did and which is central to selling neo-liberalism to the gullible, is making the case for trickle down economics.
I’m not sure why people are reading “trickle down economics”
Kelvin in a world where there are billionaires who are richer than some countries and pay almost no tax, where companies like Apple have hundreds of billions in the bank, and at the same time working people have to go to food banks to feed their kids. How can you possibly think that Starmer’s economically illiterate ‘when the rich get richer everyone else does too’ fantasy is ok?
How can you possibly think that Starmer’s economically illiterate ‘when the rich get richer everyone else does too’ fantasy is ok?
Whoa, no one knows what Starmer thinks, he probably doesn't even know himself, we only know what he says.
He didn't say anything like that at the Labour Party Conference, as far as I am aware, he was talking to the CBI when he made the comment.
So he would say that, wouldn't he?
If you don't like what he said at the CBI Conference just focus at what he said at the Labour Party Conference. Which I believe is what he wants you to do.
‘when the rich get richer everyone else does too’
Where did he say that?
Do we not want successful businesses?
You’ve listed many ways that our system is failing people. All of which I agree with you on. None of it means we shouldn’t have a skilled, well paid, secure workforce. Or that businesses wouldn’t profit from a better skilled, better paid, more secure workforce. Or that we can’t all benefit from having successful businesses here.
This, is quite good:
"Secure, well paid, skilled work is not separate from good business. It is the driver of good business"
This, is both wrong, and a stupid thing for him to say:
"When business profits, we all do"
And the timing of dropping a stupid line like that right when he should be relentlessly hammering the tories for being in businesses' pockets and for pouring money at Track and Trace and so many other private failures, all of which are examples of "when business profits, we get shat on"...
Where did he say that?
Do we not want successful businesses?
Whoa, no one knows what ernie thinks, he probably doesn’t even know himself, we only know what he says to 'win' arguments on the internet with his mad debatin' skillz.
This, is quite good:
“Secure, well paid, skilled work is not separate from good business. It is the driver of good business”This, is both wrong, and a stupid thing for him to say:
“When business profits, we all do”
This can be read two ways. If you take the second quote in isolation then you do get the trickle down economics nonsense of the right wing. Putting the quotes together then its not bad. You can read it as 'If you have a secured, well paid, skilled workforce then when that business does well, we all do well.'
Gosh, are we back to your personal attacks and your strange obsession with my alleged "debatin’ skillz" vazaha?😁
It must be really frustrating for you to be unable to contribute to any political thread beyond repeating the same personal attack.
I can't say I can recall you making any comment beyond your cack-handed attempts to say that you disagree with me.
Having generously shared your opinions of me, how about giving your opinions of Starmer? Or anything else for that matter.
There is no such thing as trickle-down, the last 40 years have demonstrated this. (Which implies the private sector generates money - which is tosh.)
The private sector obtains its money when the government spends into the public sector. The public sector then effectively spends into the private sector (who cream profits away) and the deficit is enlarged as money moves around. The money is then taxed back out at some point.
It is the only source of GBP.
Commercial banks provide loans that have to be zero'd off at the end of their usefelul life.
Private companies don't create money! They just swill and concentrate existing money around.
That said we do need business to produce services and products, and offer employment.
But we need the workers as much.
Starmer is working from an 80s playbook now.
He has no good or new ideas.
I'm all for small businesses (I've run one for 30 years) but he doesn't mean this in a CBI speach does he?
If the Telegraph are citing him as grasping fiscal responsibility - you know it is a bad thing for all of us because the Telegraph are economically not interested in the have-nots.
But we need the workers as much.
Goggle 'where have all the workers gone' for insight into how post-pandemic things have changed