Forum menu
Starmer blames retreat from nationalisation pledge on post-pandemic debt
Presumably a Labour government was able to create a national health service in 1948 because WW2 hadn't left the UK with any debt.
Starmer blames retreat from nationalisation pledge on post-pandemic debt
Not factually correct is he?
BoE bought the 400 billion debt with Q/E. Because they can. To make it look like the government needed to borrow.
It's not 'owed' to the private sector.
It's all bollocks.
While total borrowing between March 2020 and July 2021 was £413bn, the Bank of England’s total purchase of government debt was £412bn, or 99.5%.
They need to look at the big bank the government owns.
Biggest lie going.
(I reckon it's closer to 450billion but there's pockery going on.)
So what the hell is he talking about?
This info is on the BoEs website.
Presumably a Labour government was able to create a national health service in 1948 because WW2 hadn’t left the UK with any debt.
And it's even less of problem now because we operate a fiat currency.
It’s what you’d expect, nothing is happening at Labour HQ just now, Starmer is not in the news
Well if you call a very major speech a week ago in which Starmer attempted to communicate his vision for the UK "nothing" then I guess so.
But I think the real problem is that when Starmer occasionally decides to say something it is invariably meaningless uninspirational waffle.
If you feel otherwise here is his entire instantly forgettable speech from a week ago, which you presumably didn't know about or have forgotten. Enjoy
https://labour.org.uk/press/keir-starmer-speech-on-labours-mission-for-economic-growth/
No worries, thought you might be interested!
'Growth' means 'I'll pay you a little bit more if you increase my profits a great deal more', it's a redescription of trick-le down which we all know means trickle up. They could just as well campaign around 'Jam Tomorrow', 'Suffer to Save the Rich' or 'Now Is Not the Time'. At least the Tories are upfront about attacking living standards, sacking people and reducing workers' rights whilst they party, Labour is much more insidious.
JRM has broken cover! Be interesting to see if any journalists test other MPs on it.
Surely the issue is if they come out admitting it, the illusion is shattered and all monetary policies based upon austerity and being frugal with economy which really did a **** number on a fair few people would be plain to see as a complete fabrication would result in society being just a tad annoyed?
We could then keep everyone out of poverty, homeless off the streets, loads of training for positions we desperately need to fill, debtless society and warm hugs all round. Or is it just no, small government is better, we will manufacture division and animosity to keep the cycle repeating?
George Osborne admitted that austerity had nothing to do with reducing the national debt. It was about, as Thatcher put it, 'rewarding the wealth creators' (trickle up).
I've been saying for some time that the brexiteer tories are closet MMTers. Seems they now feel comfortable admitting it. Labour are so far behind on economics it's laughable. They've somehow manoevred themselves into a position where they are now the party preaching austerity. That's quite an achievement!
I've no doubt about how monetary operations currently work and how we've been misled.
The detail is all there just read Warren Mosler (previously a Bond salesman), Kelton, Bill Mitchell, Richard Murphy.
Getting classical mainstream economists to accept it is hard work.
James Meadway - McDonnell's previous senior financial advisors still believes currently we borrow from the private sector.
That's why Labours stuffed.
It's a shame because the Tories will cause havoc with it.
Labour are so far behind on economics it’s laughable.
But the story that's told to the public (by both parties) is a believable and understandable one to millions of folks who are used to hearing it, and understand what politicians actually mean when they talk about it, it's not a message about economics, it's a message about trust. Labour always have to have policies that are "paid for" the Tories always have to say that the NHS is "safe in their hands " these are messages about trust, not money.
I doubt you'd be able to gather up 10 people who'd be able to guess at all accurately how much the Army costs or the NHS or anything, people aren't really interested.
Labour always have to have policies that are “paid for” the Tories always have to say that the NHS is “safe in their hands ” these are messages about trust, not money.
Yeah I agree with this but they could just rewrite the narrative with fairly logical facts.
Instead of being push-overs.
If you have to claim something is costed - you open yourself up to analysis. The debate becomes about how it's afforded.
Labour did this in 2017/2019. Mistake.
but they could just rewrite the narrative with fairly logical facts.
They could certainly try, but in a political world where folks are free to pick their "own facts" these days I'm not sure that it wouldn't just be easily dismissed as just changing the goal posts.
I agree with you that we badly need a new 'conversation' about finances and spending and taxation, but I'm not certain that politicians are the best folks to lead that.
but I’m not certain that politicians are the best folks to lead that.
JRM seems to disagree. What harm would it do Labour to agree with him? Instead they'll be backing themselves into the pro-austerity corner while the tories pretend to be the party on the side of working people. Instead of promising to 'balance the books' Labour should be pushing the simple message that government money is going to the top 5% instead of the bottom 50%. Why is that so hard for them?
What harm would it do Labour to agree with him?
Really? Given his current performance, you want Starmer to be seen by the wider party to be agreeing with JRM of all people. You can’t see the issue with that?
sorry wromng thread!
you want Starmer to be seen by the wider party to be agreeing with JRM of all people.
No I want Starmer to point out that JRM is correct in that we don't have to pay back the national debt, and that a large part of it is fictional. These two facts as voiced by JRM should be used by Starmer in every economic debate to hammer home the message that it's not the level of spending that needs to change, but the destination of the money. He won't do that though will he? Instead he'll shoot his own feet by restricting his ambitions to do something that even right wing tories admit is not required.
you want Starmer to be seen by the wider party to be agreeing with JRM of all people. You can’t see the issue with that?
JRM is wrong just about everything but he's correct on that even if he's using it for his own ends.
No I want Starmer to point out that JRM is correct in that we don’t have to pay back the national debt, and that a large part of it is fictional.
You must have missed my post about trust. JRM can say those things because he has no measure of trust to gain or keep. Agreeing with a loon like JRM does not increase people's trust in Starmer, saying that debts don't need to be paid off does not increase people's trust in Starmer, it would just give the RW press an easy hammer with which to beat him constantly.
I see that the latest YouGov poll gives Labour just a 1% lead, the smallest Labour lead since the first week of May. Labour 35% Tories 34%
With Ipsos giving Labour a 14% lead there is clearly going to be some credibility issues here and the trustworthiness of polls called in question.
Not good news for pollsters whose bread and butter relies on reputation and providing reliable market research to their paying clients.
Although to be fair only Ipsos have given Labour a double digit lead in the last week, all the other pollsters have been in the 1-8% range.
Whatever the true picture it hardly paints a horrendous picture for the Tories, a party currently in self-inflicted turmoil.
Lot has happened in the last couple of weeks though. Not suprised it's erratic.
This is the one which must be most scary for Labour
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1554137438083338240?s=20&t=7TkVY4m7FwZFmuoB9ORZTg
The graphics I mean, and how the two converge until Truss eventually overtakes after such an poor original start.
Channel 4 News: FactCheck: Starmer incorrectly claims economy hasn't grown for 12 years.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-starmer-incorrectly-claims-economy-hasnt-grown-for-12-years
I was of course aware of Starmer's emphasis on growth but I wasn't aware of his remarkable claim that there hasn't been any growth in the UK economy for the last 12 years.
You have to be generous and assume that it was an early morning causal and sloppy attitude to the real facts, rather than a premeditated and deliberate lie.
But for a man who has consistently attacked Boris Johnson's honesty and integrity it doesn't look good. Johnson would certainly have been attacked for making blatantly false claims like that, and quite rightly so.
How many folks will check his claim?
How many folks on the other hand will look at their pay packet that hasn't gone up in years and prices in supermarkets and the price of petrol and says to themselves "Yeah, that feels about right"
I'll bet there's more in that second group than in the first group
Cummings strategy is always to make your opponent defend himself. I think he once said something along the lines of "as soon as you force them to defend their record or explain some detail, they've lost" TBH I've seen the Tories and their like make these sorts of claims all the time, and y'know I'm happy for Starmer and the front bench to start talking up the idea that 12 years of Tory has been a disaster. If anything there should be more and more of this sort of stuff and a constant constant barrage of forcing the Tories onto the back foot by having to defend claims made by the opposition rather than talk about their own shit.
How many folks will check his claim?
Well let us hope that wasn't what Starmer was thinking when he made the easily checkable false claim, because otherwise that would put him in exactly the same category as Johnson.
To be honest I personally doubt that there is much difference between Johnson and Starmer when it comes to honesty and integrity, sadly.
For obvious reasons Johnson as PM has far more of what he says scrutinised. However I feel they are both non-conviction politicians who will say whatever is necessary to further their own personal careers. Grim.
I'm willing to cut him some slack on that.
We were almost in recession just before the pandemic and it wasn't widely reported either.
Growth for GDP is a poor way of establishing an economy's true value.
Doesn't take into account productivity, efficiency, green credentials, wages.
All part of the real economy.
GDP is just a blunt capitalists dream.
Starmer was no different offering stuff to the left to get elected than Truss jumping through hoops now.
Only, Centrists despise Truss and she hasn't made the positipn yet!
Why is it with Labour whatever it takes to get elected?
I’m willing to cut him some slack on that.
Yeah me too. Which is why I said you have to be generous and assume that it was an early morning causal and sloppy attitude to the real facts, rather than a premeditated and deliberate lie.
Though he needs to polish up his act and not claim false facts which C4 can easily expose as such.
Why is it with Labour whatever it takes to get elected?
Because Starmer's mission is to get elected, it's a nice job. Don't know about anything else he might want.
Because Starmer’s mission is to get elected,
We have a FPTP system that elects people to PM via a weird beauty contest. Until that changes, these are the politicians we have.
How many folks will check his claim?
I've said for a long time the labout party should be playing the tories at their own game. I've got no problem with Starmer making whatever baseless accusations he wants as long as it hits home. Of course Labour's problem is that they don't have a compliant media to repeat those claims as fact without challenging them so it would probably backfire. The easier thing to do is simply make the point that most people are a lot poorer after 12 years of tory rule but I can't say I'm hearing that much from Starmer.
If he made the point about people being poorer that could be construed as supporting pay claims and he wouldn't want to do that.
I’ve got no problem with Starmer making whatever baseless accusations he wants as long as it hits home.
I have huge problems with dishonesty from politicians, no matter what their cause. If their arguments are sound and convincing there is absolutely no need for dishonesty. I have always assumed that dishonesty is based on a weakness of their argument.
My attitude is change your views if they don't sit comfortably with the truth, don't try to alter the truth to fit your views.
Contemporary politicians suffer very much from a lack credibility, far more so than say fifty years ago, a very major contributor of that is the dishonesty which so many voters precieve all politicians have.
I have huge problems with dishonesty from politicians
Well there's a difference betweeen openly lying about your position on something and making a hyperbolic claim about something the opposition may or may not have done. I'm talking about the latter, as that seems to be what cuts through with potential voters. So whilst a claim that under the tories there has been zero growth is not factually correct, the broad thrust of the argument that people are worse off is true (although why they didn't just say the latter I don't know). Unfortunately voters don't want to hear factual detail, only vague, easy to understand soundbites. The tories are very good at those, and labour needs to be too.
Well there’s a difference betweeen openly lying about your position on something and making a hyperbolic claim....
Whatever the differences dishonesty is dishonesty. I have no time for dishonesty in politics. Making unintentional mistakes is one thing but deliberately misleading is unacceptable imo.
And the political persuasion of a politician is irrelevant in that respect - I don't apply double standards.
I have no time for dishonesty in politics.
Says our resident Brexitier.
Yeah that's right Kelvin - I don't support the EU* and I don't like dishonesty in politics.
What is the problem - apart from your personal obsession with me?
And what do you mean by "resident brexitier" - that I am the only person still on stw who hasn't been intimidated by the echo chamber and will openly admit to being opposed to the EU?
* I am perfectly honest about that.
Big interest rise on the cards today from our lovable rogues at the BoE.
We are seriously punishing people with all the tools of the market.
All we hear is Brexit, Brexit, Brexit with little attention on the establishment running people in to the ground.
(Clue: Brexit is not a reason to increase interest rates.
little attention on the establishment running people in to the ground
Plenty of that in the threads about the politicians doing that. Hint, it’s not Starmer or anyone else in the opposition.
My comment was simply about politicians and honesty. Brexit has only occurred because of politicians prepared to lie* to achieve it, and gain power off the back of it.
[* they might describe it as “exaggerating the truth”, which looks like Starmer’s approach with this “no growth” attack… it’s a low tactic… but hard to argue that it isn’t what works in modern politics… which is depressing ]
My comment was simply about politicians and honesty. Brexit has only occurred because of politicians prepared to lie* to achieve it, and gain power off the back of it.
I wasn't targeting you and what you said - there is however a lack of criticism without Brexit being at the end of paragraph. People would do well to pull back from Brexit and take in the entire economic paradigm.
Starmer's not offering anything congruous with growth actually - even if a modern society needs more than that.
Interest rates shouldn’t be raised. It’ll be interesting to see if either party propose anything to address the elements of supply side inflation that are home grown, or any serious mitigation for the elements that are international. I suspect not. The government will be running the country with one eye on older savers who are strongly motivated to vote for them, the opposition will be running scared of being painted as overly profligate and/or anti-Brexit (still lots of voters who think that Labour would burn money and reverse Brexit… even if neither fear makes any genuine sense in 2022, never mind by the time of the election).
It's supposed to be a big one today 0.50 - following the Fed big increase. 0.75
The USA are now in recession by traditional numbers.
Would Starmer/Reeves criticise a large rise if we had one? I suspect they would. I also suspect that the UK will have regular small rises, not a 0.5% one.
Says our resident Brexitier.
Voting for brexit makes you dishonest? That’s a new one to me, and completely ridiculous.
Would Starmer/Reeves criticise a large rise if we had one?
They’ve said almost nothing so far beyond meaningless platitudes about boosting growth. Starmer probably doesn’t even understand what interest rates do, and Reeves still thinks we have to tax before we spend. They’re both clueless.
Would Starmer/Reeves criticise a large rise if we had one? I suspect they would. I also suspect that the UK will have regular small rises, not a 0.5% one.
Let's see today shall we?
They will just the say BoE is independent - you know the script.
Voting for brexit makes you dishonest?
Absolutely not. The comment was on “dishonesty in politics” and “dishonesty from politicians”. Millions of honest people voted for Brexit.
And for the record, I’m not defending Starmer’s low tactics here. When attacking a low growth record, use that language, treat voters like adults, don’t call it “no growth”.
0.5% - 1.25 to 1.75%
Drunks.
Not good. Ultimately this will only increase costs for much of the working public, and for SMEs. Have the Labour team welcomed it, or called the BofE out on it? I’d go for calling it a sign of government failure. The BofE deserve to be called out on their decision, but the opposition should take aim at the government, more than BofE, for obvious reasons. Not least because our “independent” bank has to follow the remit the government sets… a remit that’s needed updating for some time now.
Voting for brexit makes you dishonest?
Absolutely not. The comment was on “dishonesty in politics” and “dishonesty from politicians”. Millions of honest people voted for Brexit.
Why were you attacking Ernie, then? It seems completely unnecessary.
Not least because our “independent” bank has to follow the remit the government sets… a remit that’s needed updating for some time now.
For sure. Times are different now.
We react too late to stuff.
I’d go for calling it a sign of government failure
Yes. As we know, and a lot of people don't know - the government own the BoE.
It's an arm of government whether people believe it or not.
Well let’s hope they try, and succeed, to pin the interest rate hike on the government then. It’s appropriate that the BofE makes real time decisions like this… but with the wrong targets, and the wrong personnel, the wrong decisions will be made. And this is a wrong decision, and will increase the chance of a long period of poor growth, increasing the cost of living for those struggling most, and result in falling living standards for nearly everyone else… all stuff that the opposition should tear the government a new one on. Starmer’s “no growth” attack seems to be setting the scene for those attacks… (although I’d much rather an honest “lower economic growth than when Labour were in office, and what little growth there has been has not been to the benefit of the British public” line.
Why on earth to MPs even accept these hospitality football tickets?!? When the Private Eye guys pressed the issue at one of the select committees they absolutely nailed it… now where’s the clip…?
Think I've seen that floating around on YouTube feed
I’m sure there was a whole thread on it on this forum… but, as ever, the search fails me (or I’m too impatient).
Sir Keir Starmer found to have breached MPs’ code of conduct eight times
But it was an honest mistake which anyone could make. Including apparently a former Director of Public Prosecutions with renowned forensic skills and remarkable attention to detail.
To be fair as the leader of a major political party he probably has more important things on his mind - such as what policies to offer voters.
From the guardian on Starmers picket line problem. Yet another indicator of his competence and political ability. He's starting to make Liz Truss look like a consomethinge professional.
A Labour source said:
Nobody forced Keir to choose this issue as the big test of his authority, but he did and his authority has been tested by junior frontbenchers and his opponent in the last leadership election and he is not doing anything about it.
His office was floundering in terms of its response. It was a total shit show.
Another MP said the issue has severely damaged Starmer’s authority and it was a “dangerous moment” for the Labour leader ahead of the party conference next month.
They added:
The whole thing is just a mess and I don’t see it being resolved. It will cast a very long shadow and has the potential to derail conference.
He failed to declare an invitation to the British Kebab awards. We need to know who actually kofte up for that.
He failed to declare an invitation to the British Kebab awards. We need to know who actually kofte up for that.
I imagine it would be a rich Turkish doner?
What's funny is that the guy that likes kebabs & footy is seen as the elite
And the guy that gets people to pay for his gold wallpaper & holidays in luxury villas is the man of the people 😳
I imagine it would be a rich Turkish doner?
Well, I for one will seekh kebabs elsewhere in future.
I imagine it would be a rich Turkish doner?
The right wing press will skewer him for this.
I bet he's been meeting ex-KFC officers in private as well.
It's not the KFC we should be concerned about! It's the naan state.
It's a pitta that people can't see though this.
I imagine it would be a rich Turkish doner?
Who when he saw Starmer apparently called out, "halal, is it meat you're looking for?".
More self inflicted drama for Sir Keir Shawarma
More self inflicted drama for Sir Keir Shawarma
I think that's a strong contender for pune of the evening. Ok I'm scraping the barrel now. sorry. 😀
The Guardian: Why is Starmer peddling the Tory ‘magic money tree’ line on public spending? It’s just bad economics.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/05/magic-money-tree-tory-line-labour-keir-starmer-tax
Some spot on hitting the nail on the head in that article....
The Labour party bringing up the topic of fiscal responsibility to fight the Tories is akin to a company putting their rival’s inferior products in their shop window. It’s just free advertising. Within days of Starmer making the “magic money tree” speech, a Tory MP was using the phrase on LBC. That the line is now being used in the context of Tory tax and spending plans does not mark progress. It simply shows how the right’s framing has been so successful that even the left has adopted it.
What’s particularly grating is that, when it comes to the magic money tree, it isn’t simply that Starmer is reinvigorating a Tory narrative – it’s that he’s breathing life into one that was already dead. The public’s concern about debt and borrowing was always era-specific to the aftermath of the 2008 financial crash, and the pandemic has well and truly eradicated it.
I wasn't aware of this:
https://mobile.twitter.com/peoplesmomentum/status/1555514769477697544
Starmer really is every bit as dishonest and untrustworthy as Boris Johnson.
I doubt anyone is going to knock "Boris the Liar" from top ranking on that front for a long time. He really is in a league of his own. Literally every time he opens his mouth he's lying, often to cover a previous lie.
Not joining in with the “all as bad as each other” narrative spekkie? Starmer declared football tickets a day late, hasn’t yet published a general election manifesto etc… he’s just as bad as Johnson. 🥱
The public’s concern about debt and borrowing was always era-specific to the aftermath of the 2008 financial crash, and the pandemic has well and truly eradicated it.
Well, that’s Guardian bubble living for you. The public’s concern about debt and borrowing predates 2008, and is very much still alive now. It tends to only apply to Labour though, which is what Starmer seems to be trying to change. Brown tried to do it defensively by hiding public debt in private debt via PFIs etc (not the way in my opinion, expensive and restrictive) and Starmer is trying to do it aggressively with over simplistic rhetoric of the type that has been so successful for the Vote Leave Tories in recent years (also not the way in my opinion, it’s time to re-build trust in politicians).
Labor are squandering their opportunities again. A mortally wounded Tory party unencumbered by leadership or any credibility in anyone's eyes, facing an economy in freefall. Here we are with a labour party ripping itself to pieces. Momentum had their chance, well two in fact, and came up short. The party needs to figure out a way of coming together for the next ge which in real terms isn't very far off.
They are definitely not all as bad as each other. But imo Starmer is every bit as dishonest and untrustworthy as Johnson - two career politicians who will say whatever they feel they need to say when standing for election, with complete disregard for honesty.
Probably the only significant difference is that in comparison Starmer doesn't open his mouth much.
But to stand on a picket line with a microphone in his hand declaring that it is "really important for politicians to come out and support you and stand with you" and claim that as a member of the shadow cabinet he was proud to do so, and then a few months later (after winning the election he was trying to win) announce that shadow ministers must not go on picket lines, and threaten disciplinary action against those who do, is crass dishonesty of exactly the same magnitude as Johnson.
But imo Starmer is every bit as dishonest and untrustworthy as Johnson
We’d never have guessed that was you opinion. Well, unless we happen across any page of any political thread that is. Johnson can’t be matched. He’s in a league of his own. Starmer doesn’t come close to him in lies. Not falling into the government’s well placed booby traps as regards the rail unions doesn’t come close to Johnson’s litany of lies, both the everyday kind and the nation redefining kind. IMO.
We’d never have guessed that.....
Has "I" now been replaced by the royal "we" Kelvin? Or are you extending your self-appointed role as policeman of political threads and now feel that you are speaking on behalf of everyone?
Can I also expect IMO to be soon replaced with IOO?
Keep up the repetition of false equivalence as regards Starmer and Johnson. They’ll be plenty of others buying into it I have no doubt. But why you think I’m alone in noticing your posts I have no idea. Perhaps because others wisely just skip them or avoid commenting on them?
But why you think I’m alone in noticing your posts I have no idea.
You alone appear to be talking in behalf of other people. When I express an opinion I use the term "I" not "we".
But I don't know perhaps you are sitting in a room with a dozen people and you have all agreed that you don't agree with my opinion.
Although more likely the reality is that you would rather keep political threads whistle clean echo chambers where there is a universal consensus which everyone agrees on. It seems to be the stw preference to be fair.