Forum menu
Blimey another one. What is 'ideological thought' and what is its opposite?
most ideologically consistent poster on here. Call that purity if you like but in my book that’s something to be admired rather than the opposite.
Being unable to change course in the light of new evidence is not the mark of an adult. (For the avoidance of doubt because it's a partial quotation I am not applying this to Ernie).
Our polity has a habit of decrying the "u-turn" when the change in direction is beneficial to the country.
Our polity has a habit of decrying the “u-turn” when the change in direction is beneficial to the country.
Or even when the u-turn is the result of someone honestly admitting that they were previously wrong.
There's an argument that willingness to u-turn is a positive attribute.
Being unable to change course in the light of new evidence is not the mark of an adult.
I agree. So given the obvious failure of 40 years of neo-liberalism to improve the lives of working people, surely the pragmatic, sensible course of action for the Labour Party is to offer an alternative?
There’s an argument that willingness to u-turn is a positive attribute.
It depends on the reason and approach and generally when it is criticised its not so much the u-turn but the bad decisions leading up to it.
The "float" an idea via the press and then rapidly u-turn when the glaring errors are pointed out is problematic. The u-turn is fine but its that its needed at all which is a problem.
Changing position over time as evidence accumulates (or rapidly in rare cases of sudden evidence emerging) is a good thing.
I am not sure if it always is with the voters. People like to know where they are with someone. And if a politician changes their mind on one thing how can you trust them not to on something else?
I don't really know ideoligically pure - but you do have to stand for something.
And the point is - last year's ideologically pure is this years pragmatism.
Why is a sixth former sneered at? When does an adult become a gammon? What does ideological impurity mean? Does pragmatic mean unprincipled? Does a clean sheet reveal a neoliberal agenda? I'm still struggling with forensic and agile ceremonies and haven't even got on to hard working families. Questions, questions, questions.
And if a politician changes their mind on one thing how can you trust them not to on something else?
For me it would depend on the reasons for that change.
New evidence fine.
Catching up with existing evidence. Somewhat dodgier ground since why did it take that time.
Changing due to bad evidence: Bad sign.
Changing because of public outcry. Definitely a red flag about their decision making
Random changing: Also red flag.
(For the avoidance of doubt because it’s a partial quotation I am not applying this to Ernie).
Thank you. There is a poster on here (I won't mention his current username but he keeps changing it) who has recently taken to repeatedly referring to me as "ernietruss".
I'm not entirely sure why but I have to assume that, apart from the fact that he undoubtedly thinks it is hilariously funny, it is because I have expressed the opinion that whilst there is very little to differentiate between Truss and Sunak on balance I probably prefer Truss to be PM as with Sunak there is imo greater possibility of harsh austerity - which would impact on the lives of ordinary working people.
Unable to see issues like that from a pragmatic perspective he no doubt translates that as me being practically a Tory and definitely a Truss fan.
In his world everything is black and white and all Tories should be despised in equal measure - no distinction should ever be made between them, and the interests of ordinary working people, which he also despises anyway, should never come into it.
I think it would be fair to say that he is a centrist. He certainly expresses the same level of political intolerance which other centrists on here tend to express.
Here we go. What’s the plan Keir?
It's only a question of time now before someone has to show a big hand.
It’s only a question of time now before someone has to show a big hand.
In a small stakes poker game that no one cares about?
That's basically what the Labour Party is.. A bunch of simpletons arguing amongst each other and then wondering why the conservatives keep winning elections.
A bunch of simpletons arguing amongst each other and then wondering why the conservatives keep winning elections
Now is the time for either party to go big in their ideas.
But for sure no one's got the imagination or guts it appears.
But as one economic model starts to collapse something has to be born out of it - currently looking like mad Max 2.
But as one economic model starts to collapse something has to be born out of it
I’m not a follower of economics so I’d be interested to hear if there is anything out there other than the current consensus? Neoliberalism had been a thing for a while elsewhere in the world before the US and Europe embraced it?
Is there an alternative or is the best we can hope for a return to old models ?
It's time for a charismatic leader to step up.
One that provides a clear vision and hope.
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer!
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1560721283574542336?t=P0kdSa5Bmcb-mm_2Xd4PgA&s=19
So recent financial support plans for the country yields good polling results ?
I’m not a follower of economics so I’d be interested to hear if there is anything out there other than the current consensus? Neoliberalism had been a thing for a while elsewhere in the world before the US and Europe embraced it?
Is there an alternative or is the best we can hope for a return to old models ?
You raise a good point and I've no idea. I know what I'd like to see.
But worth remembering globalisation has tied things in a very tricky way.
Look back in History for clues as to how things change. Black swan events in succession - got to be a bump in a new direction somewhere. Could be a long gestation period.
Some stuff is going to move into public hands for sure.
So recent financial support plans for the country yields good polling results ?
What financial support plans? Genuine question.
The sudden big Labour lead in today's YouGov poll, the best for Labour in a while, is undoubtedly connected to Labour's 6 month price freeze proposal.
It's not much and it's not a long term solution but it is better than nothing, which currently is the only other alternative.
It shows that voters are hungry for anything which offers an alternative to the Tory narrative on the cost of living crises. Labour needs to learn from that poll result and get radical. Very likely won't though.
The Times claim that it is the biggest Labour lead in a YouGov poll in nearly 10 years.
It will panic the Tories. I expect the leadership contenders to make some bold announcements to counter this sudden new threat from Labour.
A YouGov poll only 3 weeks ago gave Labour just a 1% lead over the Tories.
According to the swingometer those figures in the YouGov poll would give Labour an 18 seat majority.
Labour needs to learn from that poll result and get radical. Very likely won’t though.
Pegging the minimum wage to the cost of living seems pretty radical. Haven’t seen the detail yet but it’s an original idea that the tories won’t be able to go anywhere near. Maybe labour are finally seeing the huge gaping empty net that’s in front of them?
According to the swingometer those figures in the YouGov poll would give Labour an 18 seat majority.
Swingometer?
I get a 126 seat lab majority
Maybe we are all wrong and Starmer is playing the game well. Not scaring the horses, not committing to anything, not having a personality to build love or hate against, just being safe and professional while the tories get more and more ridiculous.
Sure it won't be anything like the Labour Party that most of us want but as Starmers goal is to get Labour into power then maybe he is getting it right.
The sudden big Labour lead in today’s YouGov poll, the best for Labour in a while, is undoubtedly connected to Labour’s 6 month price freeze proposal.
It’s not much and it’s not a long term solution but it is better than nothing, which currently is the only other alternative.
Confused? You've answered your own question.
That's what I meant by financial support. Limiting what people pay is financial support.
It will panic the Tories. I expect the leadership contenders to make some bold announcements to counter this sudden new threat from Labour.
My thoughts exactly.
Maybe we are all wrong and Starmer is playing the game well. Not scaring the horses, not committing to anything, not having a personality to build love or hate against, just being safe and professional while the tories get more and more ridiculous
I don't really think so. Just waiting until society falls apart is not playing things well.
He could've stepped up at any point during the last couple of years with ideas.
It just reinforces the point that people want help, and you've got to offer substantial ideas.
(I still think it's a tatty idea to solve anything beyond a few months. But at least it's something.)
Just waiting until society falls apart is not playing things well.
The leader of the opposition doesn’t get to set the date of the next general election, the majority government does. That is what we’re all waiting for to get a chance to replace the government that has been making most of us poorer for over a decade, with another crunch period of more people coming to realise that this winter. If in the mean time Labour can shift Tory policy towards helping people, that is a bonus… but that doesn’t change the fact that they have to do this “waiting” (I’d argue that they aren’t doing “just” that, but hey) for now.
Swingometer?
I get a 126 seat lab majority
Weird, the one I used only gave an 18 seat majority.
Maybe the one you used is more accurate but I am surprised that that the difference is so huge.
This is the one I used. You have to put in the figures yourself.
I get it, it's a bit like political lucky bags. Vote for me but what you get will be a surprise.
When are you voting for your MP? Come a general election I still fully expect the Labour manifesto to be far more transparent and detailed than the Conservative one.
Yep I guess so, details like 'security' and 'respect'.
I still fully expect the Labour manifesto to be far more transparent and detailed than the Conservative one.
But it will still be subjectively scrutinised, ridiculed, misinterpreted and re-fed to the public through the prism of Tory Central Office. The public could of course read it themselves for an objective opinion - but they generally won't bother.
I don’t really think so. Just waiting until society falls apart is not playing things well.
All depends what game you are playing. The game I was referring to was getting Labour into power and we will see if it works or not in a few years.
It is also not an actual game where each player gets a go, Starmer doesn't get a go until he wins the election so has very little control over anything the tories are doing other than to vote against them.
Yep I guess so, details like ‘security’ and ‘respect’.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the cover says something overly abstract like that. You’re one of the few who’ll read beyond that though, so I expect you’ll have a pretty good idea at that point what the policies are, and what the priorities are, when it comes to voting at the next general election (whenever that may be). The contrast with the Tory manifesto is likely to be stark (it won’t be the same inside with a different coloured cover, even if that is the noise that disaffected left wing people and other opposition parties will inevitable make about it).
But it will still be subjectively scrutinised, ridiculed, misinterpreted and re-fed to the public through the prism of Tory Central Office. The public could of course read it themselves for an objective opinion – but they generally won’t bother.
True. And that’s why it is likely to be so detailed. Expect additional documents detailing the costing as well, as in the 2017 general election. The Tories don’t have to do this because come an election they’ll have an awful lot of the media either onside, or trying to be balanced.
It is also not an actual game where each player gets a go, Starmer doesn’t get a go until he wins the election so has very little control over anything the tories are doing other than to vote against them
For sure.
But I've noticed especially in these times provocation can be a powerful tool even when you're not in power.
Especially if you're on side with the public and the government isn't.
I still think it’s a tatty idea to solve anything beyond a few months. But at least it’s something.
It's a start to give some breathing space whilst the rest of the ducks are aligned. (He said optimistically).
But I’ve noticed especially in these times provocation can be a powerful tool even when you’re not in power.
Especially if you’re on side with the public and the government isn’t.
Well, it worked for nigel farridge. Gotta give him credit for that.
I seem to remember hearing that the job of the opposition was to oppose. Maybe I got that completely wrong.
The energy crisis, the sewerage in the sea, PPE scandal etc etc should be enough to bring this govt down come election time.
If the Tories get in again after all that...
should be enough to bring this govt down come election time.
But only if voters are convinced that the alternative politicians on offer would do a better job. Otherwise what would be the point of replacing the existing ones?
Or are suggesting that nothing could possibly be worse than the current situation right now?
Edit: Do you think it's time for a D:Ream number and a bit of foot tapping by Peter Mandelson?
I seem to remember hearing that the job of the opposition was to oppose. Maybe I got that completely wrong.
Not that simple. If opposing just leaves you with lots of ammunition for media and tories to spin and smear with it doesn't turn out well in long run (with goal of winning election)
In other words, you have to pick your battles. Starmer is clearly taking it to far though and nobody knows what he stands for but keeping nose clean while Truss digs herself into holes may work.
Not that simple. If opposing just leaves you with lots of ammunition for media and tories to spin and smear with it doesn’t turn out well in long run (with goal of winning election)
Well of course it's layered.
But it's a simple fact that Starmer being fresh on the job barely challenged the Tories and put no better ideas forward during covid - leading to the Tories doing what the hell they wanted.
(In fact the furlough concept was put out by John McDonnell!)
Why do you think the Tories are so out of control?
I know he can't do very well in blocking policy but the lack of voice during 20-21 was unforgivable.
"Let's not play politics."
The energy crisis, the sewerage in the sea, PPE scandal etc etc should be enough to bring this govt down come election time.
If the Tories get in again after all that
My father, just after the 2019 election pointed out that the country needs four more years of the Conservatives to really see how bad things are going to get.
Currently very little is anything to do with Starmer but because of how the Tories have handled the country.
Though I'm still not convinced they won't get back in! I mean poll bumps are one thing but the Tories die hard.
And I still want Starmer gone. I'm not one for getting excited about getting rid of the Tories - they behave how I expect them to. And like many have only known a Labour government for a few years.
I want an inspiring government, and it looks like I won't see that in my lifetime.
“Let’s not play politics.”
Funny that now they are doing some politics, as in proposing some real policies, and declaring their position on something they’re now reaping the benefits. This stuff isn’t difficult, and up against opponents who seem to be in cloud cuckoo land (GPs writing prescriptions for help with paying bills! WTAF???) it should be easier than ever.
Funny that now they are doing some politics, as in proposing some real policies, and declaring their position on something they’re now reaping the benefits.
I know! It's hardly a puzzle is it?
We will have to see how consistently this plays out.
Next move will surely be Truss and I'm sure like a drunk at the controls of the space shuttle it will be something we can't ignore one way or another.
I'm thinking stealth nationalisation - with some more furlough type intervention or Like the GP thing offer something but make it hard to get.
Could easily be wrong though.
If the polls lean this hard against them then they will act. Although another most recent poll is around 10pts ahead.
Opinium is 8%, which is nevertheless an impressive boost for Labour as Opinium polls don't tend to favour Labour as much as YouGov.
https://www.opinium.com/resource-center/opinium-voting-intention-17th-august-2022/
It is hard not to come to the conclusion that Labour's intervention by offering a clear proposal to rising energy bills isn't a significant factor.
It is not a particularly inspiring proposal - freeze prices this winter at a level which is 54% higher than last winter and no firm commitment for next winter. But it is something and people are getting worried and desperate.
Hence the Labour boost in the polls and the Tories panic counterproposal of shifting responsibility onto GPs and clogging their surgeries with non-medical cases.
It might just be a forensic clue that progressive polices could be a winner.
It is hard not to come to the conclusion that Labour’s intervention by offering a clear proposal to rising energy bills isn’t a significant factor.
It also shows how easily people can be swayed. One policy to save people a one or two thousand quid and done, we'll vote for that party.
Or maybe it shows why being a party leader with a clean history (as far as media and slurring goes) can wait for something that can sway the voters and the voters won't have in the back their mind he is a bad guy (Corbyn) so could give him a chance.
It also shows how easily people can be swayed. One policy to save people a one or two thousand quid and done, we’ll vote for that party.
So much this.
It also shows in real terms how poor people are.
At this point I don't think people care whether it's Starmer or Truss. Show me the money. To bare this out let's see when and if Trusst fund comes up with something.
All will be revealed in a few weeks.
(I'm utterly sick of idiotic commentators on the radio debating the national debt in terms of the fiscal capacity of the UK government with regard to energy support packages. Every single one of them is using it to attack or defend Truss or Sunak. That shows how you can completely manipulate an ignorant electorate.)
I wonder if it could be as simple as Boris going giving Labour a boost? I know its hard to believe but he was popular with a lot of voters!
There's that but there's also discussion unbelievably of the Tories having sellers remorse with him going!
Trouble is British standards are dumbed down so much we simply expect good crumbs rather than the main meal.
I think that's a side effect of shoddy capitalism. Make stuff to a bare minimum quality. Charge a lot for it.
It skews your value in every walk of life. We forget there's a cost to actually produce something decent. A product of low wages, cheapness and short term mentally. Not to mention an economy built around cheap imports.
And now we have inflation as a product of that situation.
Look at the bonkers 50 year mortgages! They will be seem as a good thing to struggling buyers. They're clearly a death sentence financially and make no sense other than to leverage the hell out of a mortgage.
I know its hard to believe but he was popular with a lot of voters!
I think if you've ever canvassed for a party, you get to see a wide selection of the public, and their views I used to canvass in the sort of town where putting a blue rosette on a fly blown donkey would return a Tory, our labour candidate could've offered them their weight in gold, and it would've made no difference to their voting intentions.
Okay here is the problem with delivering a fully costed approach:
https://twitter.com/FullFact/status/1563043569744707584?t=Q5tr5BWrkFhUOPf8jDEy_w&s=19
People find flaws.
Looking at the first page of the thread one member who doesn't like posting about Starmer in the PM thread - has about 6 comprehensive posts of enthusiasm for Starmer on the first page, and anti-left noise.
I do wonder why he doesn't have the same enthusiasm these days?
I've no love for the IFS but if you use them to make your case in other 'pay-for' situations expect it to bite you back.
https://twitter.com/jrc1921/status/1563053541081563136?t=fdNJgNrva1DaOd1LxUOb5w&s=19
Fully funded.
Fiscal prudence.
Doesn't work.
And is not the truth of government spending - bites you on the backside.
bites you on the backside.
Will it though? There is little doubt that Labour actually offering a proposal which distinguishs it from the Tories, over a matter which greatly concerns voters, has given them a boost in the polls.
How well it has been costed is probably quite unimportant imo. I do expect the sudden double digit Labour lead not to last indefinitely (the latest poll already has the lead back in single digits) but only because one solitary and relatively small proposal isn't going to have a profound and lasting effect, not because it was poorly costed.
For Labour to be seen as a credible alternative to the Tories it has to offer alternative policies, as the recent boost in the polls suggest.
Will it though? There is little doubt that Labour actually offering a proposal which distinguishs it from the Tories, over a matter which greatly concerns voters, has given them a boost in the polls
It's already bit them on the arse by the fact the cock-up up is now doing the rounds. Which will give the right all the ammunition they need. I mean, a few weeks ago Labour were attacking Truss for unfunded tax cuts.
And whilst we analyse polls on a weekly basis for forum therapy - and it doesn't give the bigger picture I do notice Labour have dropped back on R&W.
Anyway, full-costed causes scrutiny that becomes a negative issue which we know is irrelevant but Labour have put too much emphasis on this.
https://www.cityam.com/peter-mandelson-calls-on-labour-to-redouble-its-private-donation-efforts/
The party grandee, and New Labour architect, told City A.M. that Sir Keir Starmer “cannot allow himself or the party” to become beholden to “hard-left trade unions” that “are going to try and use their financial muscle to get policy positions they want from Labour”.
How fitting that Sir Keir Starmer should choose to give an interview to a newspaper so confused that it either doesn't understand what "premiership" means in a political context, or thinks that Jeremy Corbyn is a former prime minister.
Labour’s largest Union backer Unite has threatened to completely withdraw its funding in the wake of Starmer’s efforts to moderate the party after Jeremy Corbyn’s premiership.
Quality journalism.
Sorry that was suppose to refer to Peter Mandelson giving an interview - not Starmer! It turns out that it's also me that is confused! Although not quite so confused as to not understand what 'premiership' means. And luckily for City A.M. readers I don't write for a business newspaper.
Dozy Reeves wants to know where the money is going to come from.
FFS.
Like clockwork.
It's almost like the poor don't matter to Labour.
Centrist shifting the debate away from the crisis of not being able to afford bills to how a currency issuing government can afford its bills
Useless.
What’s she up to trying to hold the government to account 😡
Dozy Reeves wants to know where the money is going to come from.
To be fair she doesn't have much of a choice. Having decided to go down the road of fiscal prudence what else could she say?
You can't expect her to do a U-turn at the first hurdle.
To be fair she doesn’t have much of a choice. Having decided to go down the road of fiscal prudence what else could she say
She could tell the truth about government spending doesn't rely on being fully costed? And it's more important as Martin Lewis said to find a solution.
Labour put themselves in this position.
What’s she up to trying to hold the government to account 😡
It's barrier to giving support to the people Labour are supposed to help.
They can afford it. Repeat.
There's no point helping those in need if your first position is that the government needs to fully cost itself and apply scrutiny.
The first position is to solve a problem.
How about the fact that this bail out is on national debt that has gone from 500billion to 2.3 trillion, since the Conservatives have come to power. OK the sums may not be correct but still, this looks like bail now, pay later.
JeZ
The national debt doesn't get paid down like you think.
The national debt is just a record of government spending not yet taxed back (it includes private savings, NS&I as well as bonds.) Stuff that shouldn't be returned back unless you want people to lose their savings?
40% of the national debt is owned by the BoE.
If the national debt decreases then you remove money from the economy.
It's not a debt at all - it's a matched record of all spending made by the government. It's function is to balance the spending by the government by draining reserves from the private sector by bond issuance (bonds that are purchased by earlier government money creation.)
The national debt is part of normal government spending and given the government doesn't operate like a household can never be a burden on more spending.
If you are the currency issuer a debt is in your own currency is not a problem.
It’s barrier to giving support to the people Labour are supposed to help.
They can afford it. Repeat.
She's asking the question now, as there has always been the 'magic money tree' throwaway by tories, the support will still happen, the tories are in the position of not being able to back down, Truss has stated last week she had a plan, this is the plan, if they suddenly stop if because of Rachel Reeves then Labour can say 'well it couldn't have been a good plan if they abandoned it at the first query'.
She’s asking the question now, as there has always been the ‘magic money tree’ throwaway by tories, the support will still happen, the tories are in the position of not being able to back down, Truss has stated last week she had a plan, this is the plan, if they suddenly stop if because of Rachel Reeves then Labour can say ‘well it couldn’t have been a good plan if they abandoned it at the first query’.
All Labour have to do is deal with the reality of government spending. Stop making things up about spending!
That's it.
Not create a false restriction based on balancing the books.
Rachel Reeves was a bloody banker and BoE classical economist which side is a she really on?
Attack the plan don't attack the funds to pay for it. It works against Labour.
This debate was sign-posted weeks ago.
I will absolutely object to any pay-for arguments. They're based on a falsehood.
It may be a fairly effective line of attack right now, as a lot of typically Conservative voters seem to think that Labour is profligate and reckless with the country's finances. Chipping away at the confidence those voters have in the Tories' ability to manage the economy may get them thinking more carefully about their vote, so they either don't vote or in some cases may even vote for Labour if they're making what they feel to be reassuring noises about spending.
On the other hand while it may (emphasis on may) be a good tactic now it seems like a line that could well come back to bit Labour in the future, if they ever try to change the narrative on government spending towards what Rone advocates.
Thinking - she could take the position it's not actually enough?
I'd be happy with that.
Rone:
The national debt doesn’t get paid down like you think.
The national debt is just a record of government spending not yet taxed back (it includes private savings, NS&I as well as bonds.) Stuff that shouldn’t be returned back unless you want people to lose their savings?
I'm not an economist but I do know we have to pay interest on this debt and the debt isn't just the BoE. So it does effect us in the future and the interest payments takes money away from the public purse that could be invested in services. Again I still don't think this is wise and again we are still being played by the energy markets and paying more based on speculation.
In all of this the government still hasn't a longer term plan but maybe because some of the government revenues are based on fuel prices they are in their own conflict. Personally I see the best option in this is to be more self reliant as a household and I'm in a good position to do this.
JeZ
Don't mention gilts Jez! You'll fire Rone up and we won't hear the end of it...
While I don't pretend for a second to understand economics of countries if it were true that a government that can print its own money and never has to repay it why doesn't every country with their own currency just print off all the money they will ever need? Surely you end up devaluing your currency & cause inflation?
Kelvin:
Don’t mention gilts Jez! You’ll fire Rone up and we won’t hear the end of it…
Funny you should say that, I did think about mentioning them as I did study economics at University as a unit on strangely an engineering degree (don't go there), but thought I'd better not as it always stirs up contention.
JeZ
Well you clearly can't just give everyone in the country £10MM and solve everything immediately but you certainly can use £100 Billion in times such as energy crisis as it would cost the country more than £100 billion if you didn't
Indeed. The cost of not spending is too easily overlooked ('till the **** hits the fan).
as I did study economics at University
Economics is not a science. Markets change, government policy changes, world events happen. What you learnt in economics is only useful in a historical context and probably won’t be applicable today.
Good gob, I had Laidler and Parkin, monetarists who advised the Pinochet govt (result? 6000% inflation)