Forum menu
Ok, only I notice your posts, and your agenda as regards painting Starmer as just as bad as Johnson in all the political threads. Happy now?
There is no echo chamber here in this forum. And disagreeing with you isn’t part of an attempt to make the forum one.
There might however be a bit of a “consensus” in this thread about Starmer, and I might sometimes be foolish enough to go against the grain and post something not entirely negative about him here, but that consensus mostly comes from the fact that most people avoid this thread like the plague. What’s the point in engaging?
Actually, what is the point of engaging?!? I should have learnt my lesson by now.
I've noticed too!
Which clearly means at least two of us are wrong... 🤣
Ernie's view is that Starmer is as bad as Johnson - I don't agree but the chances of anyone persuading the master debater is about zero I suspect.
I will always see it that Starmer is worse as he's meant to be the one that stands up for the rest of us.
Johnson, Truss etc just playing to their own crowd. Doing the Tory thing.
This is the problem with arguments built on competence rather than ideology.
The Guardian: Why is Starmer peddling the Tory ‘magic money tree’ line on public spending? It’s just bad economics.
Well he's not only categorically wrong on how the system operates - there is a magic money tree, the BoE that issues money to the Treasury but he's also not doing his voters any favours because his model of growth by balancing the books will deprive them of redistribution.
Ok, only I notice your posts, and your agenda as regards painting Starmer as just as bad as Johnson in all the political threads
I think they can be bad in different ways.
Starmer is meant to be the way out for us, and he's not going there. That makes it so much worse - for me.
Ah, applying different standards. I’m guilty of that myself. I expect much more from Labour* politicians than Tory ones. That doesn’t make Starmer as bad Johnson. Or Reeves as bad as Zahawi. Or Lammy as bad as Truss. Or Rayner as bad as Raab.
[ *and politicians from the other parties as well ]
The false equivalence on “honesty” is still odd though. Take the standards commissioner’s reports… Starmer’s breaches "minor and/or inadvertent", Johnson’s breaches “neither inadvertent nor minor". Just the same… 🤷🏻♂️
Yes, I would rather Starmer was turning down free football tickets… never mind declaring them on time but… “the same” as Johnson… nah… get back to me when he’s slipping his security to meet ex-KGB agents in secret.
Actually, what is the point of engaging?!?
You ask the question but yet you can't help yourself.
I will repeat - 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.
That is my opinion. You might have a different opinion but it doesn't mean that it is the "correct" opinion, as you seem to think it is.
Starmer was standing in the Labour leadership election when it went to a picket line and declared that it was important for politicians to support trade unions in disputes and that as a member of the shadow cabinet he was proud to do so.
A few months later having won that election and with his eye on another election he completely changes his stated principles and sacks a junior shadow minister for defying his ban on supporting trade unions at their picket lines.
That betrays his staggering level of dishonesty and untrustworthiness. Now you might well argue that you support his tactic and that he should lie, deceive, and mislead as necessary, to win elections.
But it is quite disingenuous to claim that it is a false comparison with Johnson. It has very clear and valid comparisons with Johnson imo
Just to be clear I don't think that Starmer is currently a "as bad as Johnson", he has the constraints placed on him as leader of the Labour Party, Johnson has no such constraints.
But when it comes to honesty and trustworthiness I see little to differentiate the two, sadly.
Btw some seem to think that there is nothing that Starmer can do to satisfy me. That is clearly nonsense, and he could start off by being honest.
To say Starmer is anywhere near as bad as Johnson is just ridiculous. We all know he's the ultimate class traitor (according to the usual suspects on here) because he's not rapidly left wing enough.
Once again confusing their own little echo Chambers with reality.
because he’s not rapidly left wing enough.
He is not even what he says he is.
Or at least what he said he was a few months ago.
Now it's anyone's guess what he is as he's only offering "a clean slate".
Just an excuse for dumping the 2019 manifesto and producing a new one when we finally get to a general election, no? It is true that beyond some commitments towards the tax and business regime that most voters won’t care about, and the valuable but already factored in green stuff, we don’t know what’ll be in that manifesto, and that is frustrating. But manifestos are published on the run up to elections… for now the opposition’s job is to scrutinise the government. I fully expect that manifesto to be no where near as close to my own politics as either the 2017 or 2019 manifestos… but not enough people voted with me in support of those… so we won’t be getting what was is them, sadly… oh, and, yes, the world and the UK have changed considerably since then, and will do over the next year or so, so that is more than just an excuse I suppose.
Actually, what is the point of engaging?
So you can tell us what to think, and back seat moderate anyone who disagrees with you.
We all know he’s the ultimate class traitor (according to the usual suspects on here) because he’s not rapidly left wing enough.
If you say so. My problem with him is that he's fundamentally dishonest. I expect it from Johnson, but I trusted Starmer enough to vote for him, and feel badly let down.
So you can tell us what to think
You mean disagree? And post that dissent?
Isn’t that how we avoid the forum becoming an “echo chamber”?
You mean disagree? And post that dissent?
No.
But Tories have been lying for years on just about every facet of society.
Their whole ideology is built on a lie that the private sector knows best and state can't generate wealth. Trickle-down etc. That efficiency is the reason things don't work as well as they could.
It's all a lie.
But with Johnson we got the melodrama and the script. And the character.
Nothing about Johnson suprised me.
Previous to Johnson the scathing lie of austerity. One huge lie. It's always been there.
Starmer hasn't done enough to push back against the Tories despite all this - as a Labour member (up until recently) this enrages me.
Yes Starmer has been dishonest with Labour members. It's not close to Bojo levels though- come on! Even if you don't include his private life he is well beyond Starmer. Number of lies, size of the lies whichever way you look at it Bojo is worse.
Also with the fiscal responsibility thing Labour could attack the Tories from so many angles without even mentioning the Magic Money Tree or any economic model.
Rishi Sunak writing off that money, all the dodgy PPE deals etc
Previous to Johnson the scathing lie of austerity. One huge lie. It’s always been there.
Saying that I would love to see this lie come out.
Number of lies, size of the lies...
Well Starmer says a lot less than Johnson so just on that count it should mean less lies. As for the size of the porkies I think claiming that politicians, especially shadow cabinet ministers, should show their support on picket lines, and then a few months later sack a junior shadow for doing precisely that, is as dishonest as anything you might expect from Johnson.
Although I'm not looking at this as some sort of competition between the two.
Yes Starmer has been dishonest with Labour members. It’s not close to Bojo levels though- come on! Even if you don’t include his private life he is well beyond Starmer.
What is your measurement? Number of lies or lies as an affect on society
In some ways I saw Starmer at the height of covid and his lack of pushing back against government decisions as totally despicable. He simply didn't do enough with his voice because he didn't want to play politics. All of that set the landscape for Johnson doing what he wanted.
So yes of course Starmer wasn't constantly telling lies like Johnson but he's become part of an era where an acceptance of values that are to the detriment of society and particularly Labour voters has become normalised.
Because the establishment says so.
There's just a big picture here about the way the right-wingers act that has been passed off as beneficial to society - that has ultimately turned out to be a massive fragmented corruption of our values.
Think things went wrong from Brexit - no, go back much much further
But as I said earlier what's the difference between Starmer having a list of jettisoned values and ideas to become elected and what Truss is doing now?
Starmer is called a pragmatist by his supporters. They are Centrists supporting lies just to get their man.
And yet this could be invalidated by having a set of strong values, and selling them to a wide audience - especially in a COLC.
What is your measurement? Number of lies or lies as an affect on society
By either of those metrics Johnson is comfortably worse. Many leagues apart. The only measure they might comparable is as a ratio of lies to expected lies and even by this daft measure you need to put a lot of negative spin on Starmer words and actions (as seen above)
What is your measurement? Number of lies or lies as an affect on society
In some ways I saw Starmer at the height of covid and his lack of pushing back against government decisions as totally despicable. He simply didn’t do enough with his voice because he didn’t want to play politics. All of that set the landscape for Johnson doing what he wanted.
So yes of course Starmer wasn’t constantly telling lies like Johnson but he’s become part of an era where an acceptance of values that are to the detriment of society and particularly Labour voters has become normalised.
Because the establishment says so.
Yes he has been a shit leader, he is nowhere near where a Labour leader should be, he lied to get elected but Bojo is still another level.
I get the idea that SKS's lie is a big one - he lied about who he is and who he stands for. But really Bojo did the same, he doesn't give a **** about your average Brexit voter nor red wall voter the fact that WE knew it all along about Boris and that SKS pulled the wool over our eyes is the difference.
As the person who initially made the comparison between Starmer's and Johnson's dishonesty can I reemphasize that I am not referring to some sort of competition between the two.
Johnson's lying is the stuff of legend, a point that I made back when he was London mayor. He was sacked from his first job for lying he was sacked from the Tory front bench for lying and he has never, and will never, stop lying - especially it would appear in his personal life. I doubt that many people could match that record.
What I am referring is the willingness to deliberately lie, deceive, and mislead, specifically to achieve political objectives. In that respect I see little to differentiate the two.
In fact I would go as far as to say that Johnson actually provided more information to give people a fair idea what sort of PM he be likely to make - eg, Tory economic policies, not strongly pro-austerity, pro-brexit, than Starmer has.
If there was a general election tomorrow people would have no real reason to know what sort of PM Starmer would make and the likely policies of his government - he simply isn't that honest about what he believes in.
And when he does very unambiguously spell out his beliefs and principles, as he very clearly does in the picket line clip above, he will without the slightest hesitation completely reverse them if he feels that it is politically expedient to do so. How, ffs, is that fundamentally different to Johnson?
How does the betrayal that many Remainers feel towards Starmer make him more honest than Johnson?
On every major issue Starmer has deceived and misled. Goddamnit Starmer's own website spells out with complete clarity where he stands on 10 major issues:
https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/
It turns out that despite still being on his website he doesn't believe any of it. In fact in many cases he believes the complete opposite.
How does that make him "more" honest than Johnson? And how has Johnson been comparably misleading about his beliefs?
The same people who are so quick to condemn Johnson for dishonesty appear to be extremely reluctant, if not blankly refuse, to condemn Starmer's dishonesty.
It would appear that for some people the problem isn't that Johnson is a liar but the wrong sort of liar.
My problem with him is that he’s fundamentally dishonest. I expect it from Johnson, but I trusted Starmer enough to vote for him, and feel badly let down.
Agree. Starmer is measurably not even close to Johnson but I don't give a shit about Johnson as don't expect anything better (how could anyone after seeing him fro last 20 years!)
Starmer has turned out to be someone you can never know what they actually stand for and what they do seem to stand for is always up for change. We are looking at another 5 years of tories with potentially the worse leader they have had and that is saying something.
If there was a general election tomorrow people would have no real reason to know what sort of PM Starmer would make and the likely policies of his government
Come a general election, there will be a published election manifesto. And as per other general elections in recent history, I would expect the Labour one to be more transparent and more detailed than the Conservative one. We’ll see when it’s published.
Come a general election, there will be an election manifesto.
This is a key point for me. There isn't much point in a manifesto at this stage. In fact imo it would just be a stick to beat him with later. Yes, I'd like to see a little more but I'm willing to wait until a bit nearer the election. I'm pretty confident it won't be exactly what I want but it will be way better than anything offered by Truss/Sunak
So the reason that Starmer has been fundamentally dishonest about what he believes in, from his 10 "pledges" to his views of shadow ministers on trade union picket lines to brexit is because there hasn't been a general election called?
You're having a larf
Agree. Starmer is measurably not even close to Johnson but I don’t give a shit about Johnson as don’t expect anything better (how could anyone after seeing him fro last 20 years!)
This x 100.
Yes, I’d like to see a little more but I’m willing to wait until a bit nearer the election.
We don't really have a choice here.
If Starmer is scared to upset the establishment now - he's not going to do it in power is he? He will want to stay in power.
We don’t really have a choice here.
To be fair neither will Starmer have much choice. Attacking Liz Truss's character is likely to prove significantly harder than attacking Johnson's.
Starmer is going to have to find another way of attacking the Tory prime minister for the next couple of years.
And attacking policy is going to add to the pressure of offering credible alternative policies.
Otherwise there a real possibility that Starmer's ineptitude will feed a growing sense that he should be replaced. Although imo the Labour Party's problems run far deeper than who is the leader.
Here's the thing it's possible that Truss could spend the 40/50 billion needed to sort the crisis for utility bills.
If she does - what then for Labour?
Because it's a real possibility.
Time for small crumbs has gone.
Here’s the thing it’s possible that Truss could spend the 40/50 billion needed to sort the crisis for utility bills.
Interesting, but even if she tabled the idea, do you really think her tory puppet masters/donors would allow it?
Heaven knows.
But it's effectively passing money to the companies so it might get a golden ticket.
It could just be the lowest teir of support too.
I don't rule anything out these days.
If Truss wins the leadership election by the margin she is expected to she will have imo significant personal authority over the direction of the party.
Would Tory Party donors continue to give their support - why not? A stable Tory government is on their favour so they are unlikely to shift their support elsewhere I would have thought.
Plus it's not just political stability and minimising the risk of a more radical alternative that might concern them, as rone points out it also about providing economic/market stability.
On the wider question of 'what then for Labour?' I would expect them to probably continue on the course which they currently embarked on - denouncing "money tree" economics and offering themselves as the party of fiscal prudence. Why would they abandoned that line of attack if the Tories were found to be gorging themselves on the fruits of the money tree?
Edit: Just to be clear I have no idea whether Truss would sort out the utilities bill crises with such a package. Unlikely I would have thought - is she giving any hints that she is thinking along those lines?
If Truss wins the leadership election by the margin she is expected to she will have imo significant personal authority over the direction of the party.
Really. Pmsl! This is a person who claimed the UK could strike a lucrative trade deal, and I quote...
"selling yorkshire tea to China"
So you think that someone who wins the leadership of the Tory Party by a very comfortable majority and simultaneously becomes UK Prime Minister has no personal authority over the direction of the party and government?
Her personal authority won't be based on what she said concerning Yorkshire tea but on her position of power as both the leader of the Tory Party and as Prime Minister.
When you have finished pissing yourself laughing perhaps you should face that harsh reality.
is she giving any hints that she is thinking along those lines?
She just u-turned on no handouts!
Pmsl
Her personal authority won’t be based on what she said concerning Yorkshire tea but on her position of power as both the leader of the Tory Party and as Prime Minister.
Which worked so well for May. The Tory leadership are hamstrung to the headbangers of the ERG and that ilk
So you think that someone who wins the leadership of the Tory Party by a very comfortable majority and simultaneously becomes UK Prime Minister has no personal authority over the direction of the party and government?
Yes. That is precisely what I think. Are you seriously trying to suggest Truss is anything more than a glove puppet?
A glove puppet to mysterious "Tory puppet masters"? Just her or all the Tory leadership candidates?
And yeah, if she beats Sunak by the margin it is suggested she will have considerable authority over the Tory Party, at least in the immediate future. Yorkshire tea doesn't come into it.
I don't think you understand. I can explain it for you but I can't understand it for you.
Well you could just explain if it's all the Tory candidates that are controlled by "Tory puppet masters" or just Liz Truss.
I'd say probably all of the front bench... To the point I don't really care whether sunak or truss wins, I don't think it really matters.
So probably all the front bench then. Since you offered an alleged comment about Yorkshire tea as proof that Truss must be controlled by Tory puppet masters I have to assume that they have all made similar comments. Out of interest what was Sunak's daft comment?
Btw you might not really care who wins, Sunak or Truss, but it probably does matter.
And to get back to the subject matter of this thread Starmer and his team probably care too. I suspect that they see Truss a more formidable opponent than Sunak. They are likely to feel that she has far more the common touch than the wealthiest man in UK politics.
And then there is the thorny issue of how to deal with her - insulting and patronising the third UK female prime minister (a tactic which might well have worked against Johnson) is unlikely to endear Starmer with the electorate, especially as Sunak's mansplaining appears to have worked heavily in Truss's favour.
Truss might yet prove to be a far greater headache for Starmer than Johnson has been, but only time will tell.
Truss might yet prove to be a far greater headache for Starmer than Johnson has been, but only time will tell.
I reckon both Truss and Sunak offer significant but different challenges to Starmer. Like Johnson Truss will probably take a populist approach. She's preaching thatcherite monetarist tough love now to keep the unhinged tory base happy but as evidenced by her recent u-turns, she'll cave in and start spending to keep people happy, and that will cut Starmer off at the knees in terms of being on the side of working people.
Sunak on the other hand directly challenges Starmer and Reeves economic prudence narrative as well as their claim to competence and seriousness. Why vote for economically austere, sensible and serious Starmer when you can get exactly the same from Sunak leading a party which actually believes in that stuff rather than one pretending to do so to win an election?
The problem for Starmer is that he's still playing on the pitch as defined by the tories, and now two different pitches at once. Until he starts defining his own approach and going on the offensive he'll contiue to look like a weak, ineffective, out of touch technocrat who cares more about not upsetting the establishment than helping working people.
The problem for Starmer is that he’s still playing on the pitch as defined by the tories, and now two different pitches at once.
Tories constantly out manoeuver Starmer. Windfall tax for example - because Starmer's pitch is constantly too small.
I reckon Truss will support the energy market one way or another and Labour won't be ready.
I can see it coming.
Centrists angered by Johnson on holiday - best place for him surely?
Anyone seen the wet fart that is Starmer?
Nothing on his Twitter feed other than Rachel Reeves going on about growth but no indication how to achieve this.
"Anyone seen the wet fart that is Starmer?"
Skid mark Starmer. Or: Sir Skid Mark.
Which has the better ring to it?
I think you might appreciate this article rone. It focuses on how the Tories always exploit crises in their favour, even those caused by their own ideology, whilst Labour tend to be on the defensive and are invariably overcautious.
It claims that Starmer's extreme caution strategy might at the very best result in Labour being in office but not in power.
Will do it just before bedtime Ernie!
Ta.
Which has the better ring to it?
Lol. Don't go there.
Lol, this thread is nothing more than a circle jerk amongst the same people.
And those people don't get why Labour are unelectable. And so continues the circle:
Lol, this thread is nothing more than a circle jerk amongst the same people
And here you are!
Feel free to break the mould and share some Labour optimism then.
(Wonder why the next PM thread is not a circle jerk?)
So according to you mattyfez Truss is incapable of governing as PM because 8 years ago she made a comment concerning how Yorkshire tea was being sold in China, which was both factually correct and by any measure quite remarkable.
And now you are claiming that Labour are apparently, quote, "unelectable".
Which I guess must mean that we are all at the neverending mercy of the "Tory puppet masters" which you mentioned earlier.
Does your tinfoil hat itch much in the heat we have been having recently?
Sky News: Gordon Brown - not Keir Starmer - played a blinder by calling for emergency cost of living measures.
https://news.sky.com/story/gordon-brown-not-keir-starmer-played-a-blinder-by-calling-for-emergency-cost-of-living-measures-12668629
"Some Labour activists must be wondering, however, why it's the ex-PM, who left the Commons in 2015, who's leading the charge on the cost of living crisis and not Sir Keir Starmer and his top team."
I reckon Starmer has got until Christmas / new year to grow a pair.
When the cost of living crisis really starts to bite it won't only be Labour supporters who will be imploring him to act, even non Labour supporters will begin to show frustration at his ineffective opposition.
You could argue that he's waiting for the leadership non election to run its course so he knows what he's up against.
You could argue that he's waiting for things to get really really bad before he comes out all guns blazing.(or at least some sort of policy to deal with the cost of living crisis)
Or you could argue that he'll be booted out by his own party before the spring. I am sure there must be many labour politicians taking notes from Mick Lynch with regards how to communicate with the electorate and an ageing Gordom Brown has just torn him a new one, saying more in a couple of minutes on Sky than Starmer has managed in two years.
Thing is about Brown, listening to him on LBC he didn't actually suggest anything to do.
Brown straddles new Labour and old Labour thinking for me. He might be charitable but he just get kept going on how he made the BoE 'independent'. But the government sets the inflation rate selects and the governer.
It was a load of nothing.
All of these people are wedded to a broken model which doesn't allow them to offer an actual solution.
I reckon Starmer has got until Christmas / new year to grow a pair.
I don't think he has that long. If he's not got his act together by early September the new incumbent will get a free hit with whatever half-arsed cost-of-living measures they come up with.
https://twitter.com/MartinSLewis/status/1556939639675654150
We are currently hurtling into something that will destroy lives on a scale which should be unthinkable in a country as wealthy as ours. The PM is on his holidays, no-one else in government is saying a word.
The initiative is there to be grasped. There is so much of our national infrastructure that is falling to pieces that we need the equivalent of the post-war Labour government to take it on. I still think that Labour and the LibDems should be working together more closely, and creating some kind of opposition consensus.
It will be the minimum possible at the last moment.
Starmer is not interested in rocking the boat - just pointing out occasionally the Tories are doing a bad job.
Thats the thing that frustrates me. If Labour can't win without shuffling to the right, why can't they see that they need to work together with the Lib Dems/Greens. etc.
I see Ed Davey is in the news alongside Martin Lewis leading the calls for action on energy prices. Total silence from Starmer and Labour. He should be on every news channel calling for urgent radical action, but instead he's as anonymous as Johnson. I hope his holiday is worth it.
24 hours later and not a single labour front bencher on the news talking about energy prices! A crisis on the scale of the pandemic and they've all gone on holiday. It's astonishing.
*Gordon Brown says energy firms unable to offer lower bills should be temporarily re-nationalised"
Good luck with that Gordon but I do appreciate you putting the boot in on Starmer.
(I mean why even temporary. Changing energy providers was sbit at the best of times.)
I mean why even temporary.
Because it is the New Labour way.......nationalise the losses, privatise the profits.
"Energy companies that cannot offer lower bills should be temporarily brought into public ownership, Gordon Brown has said"
So if it is not financially feasible for them to offer lower bills the government should do that, at a loss, until wholesale gas prices fall and the energy companies are once again able to make a profit.
The New-Labour/Neo-Liberal narrative is that governments should not make a profit from UK energy consumers, unless bizarrely it is the French government. Apparently only the hard left would argue against that.
And btw I believe that the French government has limited energy price increases to 4%, whilst in the UK it is forecast to rise 230%.
Because it is the New Labour way…….nationalise the losses, privatise the profits.
Oh yeah we're in that scenario for sure but it's still not a good reason.
And btw I believe that the French government has limited energy price increases to 4%, whilst in the UK it is forecast to rise 230%
The French government bought back more shares for EDF - is facing a bit of a shareholders court case now.
Hope they get a good kicking, financial sector has had it too good for too long at expense of everything else.
As it is a government and in reality can do what wants could it not just tell ofgem to get lost for a bit and set the price cap to say £1200 a year (abusing what the price cap was for but hey ho). The energy companies would let need to claim back losses from government which could be reviewed/paid as necessary
Everyone is then instantly protected, while any hardship is temporarily felt by energy companies.
“Energy companies that cannot offer lower bills should be temporarily brought into public ownership, Gordon Brown has said”
He's said that it's something that should be considered as last resort; after both loans and/or some other form of financing don't work.
He’s said that it’s something that should be considered as last resort; after both loans and/or some other form of financing don’t work.
Yeah, doesn't suprise me anything to prop their failing markets.
Classical economics really has a lot to answer for.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1557616619635068928?s=20&t=l3MzQxs025g75pmbRRwUlQ
If the right-wing commentators agree - this is very hard for Starmer Island to dodge.
https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1557664459178524672?s=20&t=WGwLb-IlbZPmYGJiDLswIQ
Holy smoke - Green bonds ?
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1558031441400942593?s=20&t=qNXK-ntPnwLNksvZKz_gDA
An effective £46 off a 4200 energy bill for pre-payers.
Jesus H Christ.
An unfair premium paid by those on the lowest incomes should be removed. Alone it won’t be nearly enough, much more help is needed and no doubt will be proposed. But that this policy even needs proposing shows how messed things are right now. We need the Tories out. This is a good policy. It won’t be the last word on energy from Labour. And you know that. Why knee jerk react to any policy Labour propose? This one is a no brainer that everyone should support, unless they think the worst off somehow deserve to pay more.
EDIT: Here’s a key line in that short and direct tweet…
This is part of our energy package to tackle the cost of living crisis.
An unfair premium paid by those on the lowest incomes should be removed. Alone it won’t be nearly enough, much more help is needed and no doubt will be proposed.
Agreed, and this something from 2016 I believe and do understand there is more to come but it doesn't bode well as your opening gambit.
And it's not nearly enough.
Why knee jerk react to any policy Labour propose?
Because it's a dint and not good enough. I will not knee jerk when I see something substantial.
My argument is largely built around not pushing back hard enough against the Tories. Time and time again we see these tidbits. Then as witht the windfall the Tories usurp.
I'm afraid where we are economically is simply go big or go home.
Anyone guess where Starmer ís and why he's preserving a druid's silence?
Okay so I'm liking the idea of blocking the energy price cap rise.
Again it's not nearly enough but at least it's direct help in the short term.
Waiting for more detail on this as the press are reporting it as £1971. But the price cap doesn't work like that it's the unit costs.
Anyone guess where Starmer ís and why he’s preserving a druid’s silence?
Plan is to freeze the energy price cap
(Which is definitely needed)
And £6bn a year to insulate houses, would be interesting to see if this is like the green homes scheme (which was a great idea but terribly carried out)
Speech on Monday
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmer-ill-insulate-britain-27734712
Devil in the detail tho, obvs
Be interesting to see how the difference is picked up
Hope the idea is not for government to subsidise the difference.
I wouldn't be keen on that.
Starmer is banging on about his inflation busting project being 'costed' so the debate has become about how it's costed rather than the desperate need of something.
Dire times.
But it is at least an idea.