Forum menu
Makes as much sense as a socialist bigging up a Tory PM TBH.
It's silly playground bollocks like that which is why engaging with some people in attempt to have a serious discussion is pointless.
Despite my reservations you started off quite sensible but sure enough when you ran out of sensible things to say you revert to puerile nonsense.
Should they avoid being involved in any event where the anthem is sung if the voters put them in government?
I don't think the national anthem has been sung at a Labour Party Conference in living memory. There is no need for it. Labour can and has won elections without singing God Save The Queen/King at party Conference
Furthermore it is crass hypocrisy imo as I doubt that the majority of delegates are actually royalists. Even if they reflect the wider population and only 25% are republicans what do you expect them to do? Sit down or walk out? That will look good in front of the TV cameras. Maybe sing along?
The idea is daft and not least because it will do nothing for party unity and will in fact highlight how divided the party is.
I don’t think the national anthem has been sung at a Labour Party Conference in living memory.
We haven’t had a new Monarch in living memory.
Anyway, you quoted this question, but didn’t answer it: Should they avoid being involved in any event where the anthem is sung if the voters put them in government?
Even if they reflect the wider population and only 25% are republicans what do you expect them to do? Sit down or walk out?
What do you want us Republicans to do when we hear the anthem anywhere? At any event? They should do that.
Yeah because singing God Save The Queen/King at Party Conference for the first time in living memory is just like that.
Not singing "God Save The King" is not an option for the Labour Party Conference this weekend.
Why shouldn’t Labour sing it? Should they welcome the new King at all? Or just leave it to look like only the Conservatives support his accession? How will that go down, after weeks of pro-monarchy fever, with the wider public?
The timing of this conference is what you are missing. At one point people were calling for the conference season to be cancelled. If Labour’s conference is to go ahead, it will have to refer to the death of the Queen, and the accession of the King. Singing the national anthem, a few weeks after those events, will seem like an entirely natural and unremarkable way to do that to most people.
Republican members can sit it out, or cross their arms, and quietly complain inside their heads, like many of us have been expected and told to do for weeks now.
Okay I get that you think the Labour Party Conference "celebrating" and "welcoming" the new King is a great idea.
I don't. I think it is unnecessary, pointless, and divisive. God Save The Queen wasn't sung last year, or the year before. I see it as fake patriotism.
Let's leave it at that.
You see the singing of the National Anthem, on the change of Monarch, as fake patriotism? What do you think of all MPs, of all parties, making a fresh pledge to the new King in parliament? I think it’s all role playing nonsense, personally. But Labour can’t risk avoiding it and leaving it all to the Conservative party if they want to win back those Red Wall Brexit voters, can they?
Now we're talking
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1573018690638987267?t=5C6DvcjcYRLWv2QcWwGSwQ&s=19
Let us hope that ^^ becomes a firm commitment rather than Labour just considering.
This was one of Starmer's pledge when he stood for the Labour leadership:
Push power, wealth and opportunity away from Whitehall. A federal system to devolve powers – including through regional investment banks and control over regional industrial strategy. Abolish the House of Lords – replace it with an elected chamber of regions and nations.
A sensible proposal which has the potential to enhance and improve the lives of ordinary people by providing a more responsive and representative legislature.
It also has the added benefit of, imo, being relatively easy to sell to the electorate. I am not aware of any great national attachment among voters for arcane roles of Lords and Baronesses.
It’s silly playground bollocks like that which is why engaging with some people in attempt to have a serious discussion is pointless.
That's fair, I'll take that.
But from my side I've asked several times why (for want of a better term) the red contingent seem so hell bent on supporting Truss and had nothing but radio silence back. It's really, genuinely perplexing that the biggest socialists here seem to be the biggest cheerleaders for the Tory PM. I honestly don't get it at all.
If it's all about giving chances that makes even less sense, Starmer never got half the love you seem to be sending her way.
The critical word being ‘timing’. That was entirely what won ‘Blair’ the election, the groundwork was already done.
A win, sure. But Blair made it a landslide, which is ultimately why he was able to sneak a third term.
seem so hell bent on supporting Truss
I really don't understand why you equate not seeing every Tory prime minister as a cretinous moronic useless half-wit with supporting them and being their "cheerleader". Just because someone has a very different political position to yours doesn't automatically make them idiots.
Tory leaders are actually highly successful at achieving their goals, ie, securing power and serving the interests of the wealthy elite.
In the case of Truss I have consistently expressed the opinion that she would/will be a 'worse' PM than Johnson, but better imo than Sunak - who I consider to be more Thatcherite. I might be wrong, we'll see, but that doesn't make me a cheerleader for Truss.
As far as Starmer is concerned he certainly did get a chance. Although unlike say Daz who did support him in his leadership I didn't** I was, and still am, hugely supportive of his 10 pledges.
If he wants to commit himself to those 10 pledges which he made during his leadership bid then he can count on my full support - in fact I would even volunteer to do election work for Labour. Starmer has been given a chance, he has been Labour leader for well over 2 years now. I want something different to the Tories, I'm not alone in that.
Edit: ** I didn't support Starmer in his leadership bid because despite making the right noises I considered him to be a careerist and didn't trust him.
Al-Jazeera doc worth watching imo
I wasn't able to watch it at 9 o'clock. Seeing the clip below I don't think that I am particularly disappointed about that. The whole sorry saga sounds hugely depressing. I guess the most useful thing that you can take away from it is how utterly futile it is to see the Labour Party as a vehicle for real change.
Despite having the huge overwhelming support of party members the Labour Party establishment was determined to destroy Corbyn because he dared to offer a mildly left-wing social democratic alternative to the Tories's right-wing thatcherism.
You would have thought that receiving over 60% of the leadership vote would have protected him from hostile internal attacks, but that would underestimate the power of the Labour establishment and their determination. Although imo Corbyn is very far from blameless - he failed to be decisive and ruthless.
There are lessons to be learnt. As I have said previously.....imo if you think the problem is the Labour Party leader then you don't understand the problem.
Replacing Starmer won't change the Labour Party. He isn't the problem.
The Labour Party aren’t the problem, a Tory party wedded to fossil fuels are.
A bit of Miliband and a bit of Streeting for you (with bonus Moran for those in seats where the LibDems can challenge Tory MPs)…
https://twitter.com/haggis_uk/status/1572892055134937091?s=21
https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1573072370880897024?s=21
The ban on fracking was introduced by a Tory government. The reason the ban is now being lifted is because there has been a change in the leadership of the Tory Party - something which you welcomed.
Tory governments do not automatically equate with fracking, it is dependent on the leadership.
Liz Truss's premiership, short as it has been, is so far confirming my worse fears - that the Tories replacing Johnson would represent a serious setback. When Johnson was forced to resign, unlike those who were celebrating, I considered it a disaster as the alternative was bound to be worse.
I want an opposition which is significantly and fundamentally different to the Tories. You seem to believe that if the Labour Party takes a stance which is different to one wing of the Tory Party that is good enough.
I want to see in government a party which will implement policies that the Tories would never implement. Your example of a fracking ban as a policy which only a Labour government would introduce smacks of desperation.
Especially as it is perfectly feasible that Truss could be forced into a U-turn over fracking as she was over her commitment of no "handouts" as a solution to energy price crises (how many billions is her handout worth?)
And not least because of mounting opposition within her own party:
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/fracking-ban-lifted-liz-truss-b2172783.html
Liz Truss was met with a fierce political backlash from Conservative MPs after lifting the fracking ban, sparking anger from Tories worried that opposition parties will use the issue to win support in key battleground seats.
Fracking is not a clear dividing line between the Tories and Labour. It simply puts Labour at the same level as some more enlightened Tories. And the ban on fracking was after all official Tory policy.
If you feel that Labour only needs to behave like enlightened Tories then perhaps the easiest solution would be for Labour to pack up and join the Tories.
At least then they would be on the winning side when it came to elections, and apparently winning elections is the only thing that matters.
"Tories are having a bounce in the polls and dolling out some money to partialy address the current desperate situation."
Centrists - "Yeah but did you see Miliband against JRM on the subject of fracking? Labour are amazing."
Everyone; the current issue is lack of money with consumers and what the establishment are doing with that. (Stupidly raising rates !)
A few weeks ago the debate was about sliding into a terrible winter with no heat or food. The Tories have offered up some crumbs and the party of the people have offered up even less crumbs. Tories offering up crumbs will work with the electorate.
Currently Labour will not got my vote until they flip the Tories with what they will do in terms of macro-economic policy. (Not difficult.)
Why on earth do centrists fail to come up with anything substantial to support the economy? (I sort of know the answer.)
I will enjoy the mess that is Trussonomics today. But at least they got some cash out there - let's find out their plan.
I'm eyeing in on Q/E.and whether it gets reversed or there is another batch.
And a possible VAT reduction.
Either way RR will simply want to balance to books as a response.
Makes as much sense as a socialist bigging up a Tory PM TBH.
I agree Starmer seems to have made a career of this behaviour.
I would rather Labour 2022 be like Labour 2017 but they aren’t. Let’s not pretend that they are just as bad as the Tories and that people have no choice between the two.
Ironically we need that more than ever and anything less is pissing in the wind - that is if you want to fix things.
This buys into Blair the saviour myth. John Smith was doing a rather good job and the tories had completely imploded.
Apart from it doesn't - I was there (man). Yes Smith had done some work but it was Blair who got the excitement going which the voters got behind, combined with the timing. Again, Starmer doesn't have either of those things, at all.
Fracking is not a clear dividing line between the Tories and Labour.
Being wedded to fossil fuels is a clear dividing line between the Conservative government(s) and the rest of us, including Labour. It’s one of the reasons we are so exposed to the current fuel crisis. That a few back bench MPs fear their voters reactions because fracking effects their seat is neither hear nor there. Those backbench MPs haven’t been pushing for the removal of the ban on onshore renewables, have they? They haven’t been pushing for anything like the transformation towards a green economy that Labour MPs have, have they? Clinging to gas and oil isn’t just about anyway.
Centrists – “Yeah but did you see Miliband against JRM on the subject of fracking? Labour are amazing.”
Am I centrist, because in our stupid FPTP system I want a Labour government not a Tory one? Right oh… anyway, on household bills (you are right to say that is what matters most in the short term) Labour long ago announced a plan, when the Tories leaders were saying they’d do nothing. Now they’ve been shifted (they had to follow) the long term approach to energy is being fought over in front of is. For the Tories their answer is more and more fossil fuels. The real price of that for our children is too high. They must be stopped.
genuinely perplexing that the biggest socialists here
If you mean the "labour, tory, they're all neoliberals and all the same" group of posters they're really not the biggest socialists.
A bit of talk among a few people on here is no big deal, but scaled up it's about discounting and splitting the labour party and continuing to keep the tories in power indefinitely, which I don't think makes you any kind of socialist other than in hobby terms.
If you mean the “labour, tory, they’re all neoliberals and all the same” group of posters they’re really not the biggest socialists.
Ignorance is rife amongst us about the lack of difference between economics of the main parties.
Am I centrist, because in our stupid FPTP system I want a Labour government not a Tory one?
Don't know about you - but I notice the lack of solutions coming from Centrists commentators about how Labour should fix stuff.
Ignorance is rife amongst us about the lack of difference between economics of the main parties.
That may be so, but wasn't my point.
A bit of talk among a few people on here is no big deal, but scaled up it’s about discounting and splitting the labour party and continuing to keep the tories in power indefinitely, which I don’t think makes you any kind of socialist other than in hobby terms.
The Labour party was split by the right of the party way before this observation took place.
few back bench MPs
The ban on fracking was clear Conservative Party policy. And a Tory manifesto commitment at the last general election.
The fact that the new prime minister has decided renegade on that Tory party policy is a reflection of internal events within the party.
The idea fracking represents a clear and insurmountable idealogical gulf between the Labour and the Tories is nonsense. As is the claim that fracking cannot be banned under a Tory government but only under a Labour government. Labour did not ban fracking when in government.
FFS please come up with something more substantial than fracking to prove a clear idealogical gulf between Labour and the Tories. Provide an example of something that could only be achieved under a Labour government and not a Tory government.
Something which goes to the very core of the aims and beliefs of the two parties. Such as the common ownership of vital industries, provisions of affordable social housing, or industrial democracy.
But of course you can't, because there isn't any. The best you come up is to suggest that Labour would make better Tories than the Tories, same policies just better implemented. And presumably a greater commitment to election promises, whatever they might be. Not a particularly convincing argument after the Labour leader has broken all ten of the "pledges" he made when he stood for election.
It doesn't have to be like this. There is no reason why the UK cannot have a party which offers a clear alternative to the Tories. A party which isn't led by self-serving careerists but instead by people who are committed to right what is wrong and take the country down a different road to the Tories.
If people don't want that then so be it, let them vote Tory or LibDem. But give them a choice, rather than ape the Tories.
FFS please come up with something more substantial than fracking to prove a clear idealogical gulf between Labour and the Tories
My actual words were...
The Labour Party aren’t the problem, a Tory party wedded to fossil fuels are.
...that does not just mean fracking, I never said it did. Fracking is a tiny part of our future energy mix, whether it happens or not. But every effort to increase our reliance on climate wrecking energy needs to be resisted.
My actual words were…
The Labour Party aren’t the problem, a Tory party wedded to fossil fuels are.
Yeah it's such an important issue for you that you celebrated when the Tories forced the resignation of their leader who was determined that the Tory Party shouldn't be "wedded to fossil fuels".
The fact that the Tories were able to have a party leader not commited to fossil fuels proves that the issue is not a defining idealogical difference. The majority of UK energy now comes from renewables - a development that has occurred under a Tory government.
Now find me a potential Tory leader who would support the common ownership of energy, rail, mail, and water. I'll save the bother - there isn't one. That is a clear defining idealogical difference.
And which the present Labour leader pledged to support. This is what Starmer had to say:
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.
Why aren't you offering that as a clear idealogical difference between the Tories and Labour Kelvin?
their leader who was determined that the Tory Party shouldn’t be “wedded to fossil fuels”.
You made this person up. If you mean Johnson, he stood in the way of on-shore renewables the whole time he was in office. And Sunak gave huge new tax breaks for investment in increasing North Sea oil and gas extraction.
Well if you insist on ignoring inconvenient stuff like this then I guess there is little point in further discussion
The only way to guarantee that the needs of the environment and consumers come before profits for shareholders is through common ownership, something which Starmer himself claimed to recognise.
That would be an idealogical gulf between Labour and the Tories. Not fracking.
I’m not ignoring the success of off-shore wind (which is the success story shown in those guardian graphs, despite not being publicly owned, paired with a fair chunk of reduced demand due to the pandemic). It’s the move away from onshore in England that has left us caught short. Trying to fill that gap in future with fossil fuels is the wrong direction to take, a direction taken by this government under both PMs. I’d rather those extra renewables were state owned, but honestly… just get on and build them whoever owns them.
'People' don't want on-shore windfarms.
They lose their shit at even the slightest mention of it. 'People' don't even want on-shore solar farms. One proposed a mile away from my house is getting loads of objections and the usual NIMBY protest group has sprung up.
I'm not one of those people I should add. The turbines near me look stunning on the hill sides. Impressive in the sun and an eerie presence in the dark winter nights.
Some 'people', for sure. And there's votes in pandering to them. But if 2022 isn't the year you can persuade people that maximising our renewable energy production, and weening us off gas, is the way forward... it'll never happen.
Now would be a great time for a left-wing party - I mean if we get more RW tax junk then surely we need to push in the opposite direction?
Replacing Starmer won’t change the Labour Party. He isn’t the problem.
No, the problem is the factions within it all determined to undermine each other at any cost. Up here they directed their energy towards the SNP by teaming up with the Tories FFS.
It's shameful TBH, the best thing to happen to Labour would be a shock win, implement PR and let the party explode into its natural factions. That would be the greatest gift they could give us and probably the easiest way to keep the country together. Lets face it, Labour haven't been a party for the workers since forever and are falling apart at the seams. The system, however, is pulling this zombie party along whilst pretending it's an opposition and they can't join forces with another party because, well, THEY JUST CAN'T!
Now would be a great time for a left-wing party
We have more than a few but without that brand awareness (yes, I did that deliberately even though it made my skin crawl typing it) they're just also-rans. The system doesn't allow small parties to become bigger, look at the Greens FFS.
the best thing to happen to Labour would be a shock win, implement PR and let the party explode into its natural factions.
I think the only reason labour aren't fully behind PR, is that a fair percentage of the parties leadership realise that is what will happen, and their fiefdoms will shrink.
We have to deal with the voting system in front of us, if we want any change in the next decade. I'm fully behind PR, as are "some" Labour politicians, but not enough. Members are behind it... Unions not... for the reasons you suggest I suspect.
As for other parties... in a parliamentary seat where the choice is between Labour and, say, one of the Green parties... I'd choose Green. That's a rare choice in the UK though. There are many seats where, to keep the Conservatives out, you need to vote Labour or LibDem, even if neither are close enough to your own politics for the vote to be the one you'd cast if we had PR. The voting system and regional demographics and voting patterns can't simply be ignored or wished away if we want an end to this string of Tory PMs taking us where they are.
One proposed a mile away from my house is getting loads of objections and the usual NIMBY protest group has sprung up.
To be fair though it's only the NIMBYs that make the noise. There could be a huge majority in favour and they'd probably not be protesting.
But if 2022 isn’t the year you can persuade people that maximising our renewable energy production, and weening us off gas, is the way forward… it’ll never happen.
Seems Kwasi is onto it already!... 🙂
I don't understand this, how is down to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to "ease rules" for onshore wind farms?
Surely it is a matter for the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, or maybe the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy?
All-powerful cabinets ministers encroaching on issues which are the responsibility of others and duplicate ministries/briefs reminds me of the chaos caused by the Nazis administration of the Third Reich!
Perhaps that's Liz Truss's plan - to have all potential adversaries and threat to her authority too busy fighting each other and trying to curry favour with her to mount a coup?
All-powerful cabinets ministers encroaching on issues which are the responsibility of others and duplicate ministries/briefs reminds me of the chaos caused by the Nazis administration of the Third Reich!
A possibly deliberate Godwin and signal it's time to end the thread.
Seems Kwasi is onto it already!…
Let’s hope it happens! 🤞🏼
Anything being leaked about solar?
And for what 'People' say - ready the Daily Mail comments!... 🤦♂️
We should be using our own natural resources to supply our energy and fuel this green agenda is costing people far too much
🤣
I'm a bit surprised that the Al Jazz Era's three part on the Labour Files hasn't had a mention. A bit slow moving, no car chase, restaurant or imtimate scenes but chilling stuff nevertheless.
It has been mentioned. Political parties have a lot of horrid manipulations and lies going on in them, don’t they.
Oh right, that's ok then.
No, the machinations talked about in that are not okay. But the documentary series has been mentioned. Can’t blame you for not reading the thread though.
Can’t blame you for not reading the thread though.
Especially as it hasn't been discussed, just mentioned. And not by you.
It's one of those things that some people would rather sweep under the carpet. And dismiss it as typical of any political party.
Although you don't give any example of other parties where the party establishment has worked so extensively to covertly attack and undermine their own leader.
Whatever.
Anyway, glad to see that Labour is spreading their “response” to the “mini-budget” across the front bench, rather than making it all about Starmer. It’s the best approach IMHO, as Starmer still can’t connect with voters, and something other than a presidential style approach is going to be essential building towards the next election.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-leader-keir-starmer-promises-28074627
At last! Something to actually get behind. More of this and I’ll have to eat my words.
Good morning. You beat me to it…
https://twitter.com/greenpeaceuk/status/1573923714139299842?s=21
Nothing new, but hopefully the timing of renouncing the longer term energy plan (going into this tough winter paired with the reshuffled government’s empty short termism) will mean people will be listening. People can see that energy is not a fringe issue, and accelerating the addressing of climate change is good economic policy for all of us. Patching over the problems this winter is essential, but the big picture is what we do in the medium and long term, and that is also government led.
Yes, nothing new, but time to take the country of pause, and get a government that will take us forward.
My dreadful terrible opportunistic local MP really annoyed me yesterday. Having a go at A.R over a tax cut that they *plan* to make by 2024 that Labour is *definitely* going to reverse.
WTF.
https://twitter.com/MTBrone/status/1573704356788051975?t=orZ689KFDJ2D3bFgvlBF9g&s=19
Yes, nothing new, but time to take the country of pause, and get a government that will take us forward
I need to be not convinced that every time we get close to actual change the establishment of both parties pushes back from it.
I've got less than zero faith in the Labour party to do anything remotely impressive.
Basically the strategy as always is wait for the Tories to implode. Sigh.
Basically the strategy as always is wait for the Tories to implode.
The strategy has been two fold… lead by announcing short term policies required, for the government to then follow and use (but twist to divert money to the rich and companies they are connected with)… and prepare and refine longer term policies ready for the next manifesto. The time to move the Tories aside is at an election. The timing of policy announcements is being very carefully planned. Those that want everything announced last year are understandably frustrated, but need to be more realistic. They would already have had to adjust any fully fleshed out policies many times to respond to world events and government changes. Being trapped with 2019/2020/2021 rigid policy commitments being repeated by Tories and their press come an election would be a mistake. The publishing of the general election manifestos will show stark differences between what the Conservatives and Labour are proposing at election time.
Just to be clear… this…
renouncing the longer term energy plan
Should have said “re-announcing”… auto correct completely changed the meaning for me. Dammit.
Your information is based on speculation and opinion yet you talk as if it's fact.
There's no way you can be sure of what you are talking up.
There is no way with 'costed' budgets they can deliver meaningful change.
You know it simply doesn't work like that.
You can either be the party of big change or you can have a balanced spending plan. If they can reconcile that I would be all ears.
Your information is based on speculation and opinion yet you talk as if it’s fact.
I’m just repeating what front bench politicians (and back bench MPs and others outside parliament involved in policy review) keep telling us. If you don’t trust any of them, then fair enough.
There is no way with ‘costed’ budgets they can deliver meaningful change.
There absolutely will be detailed “costings” for the next Labour Manifesto (just like the last two). If you think Labour will fight the election with a “don’t worry your little heads about costs, it doesn’t matter” approach, you’re mistaken.
As for the comment about “balancing”, I agree with that, but that doesn’t preclude explaining to voters what things are expected to cost, and the likely way they will be paid for.
There absolutely will be detailed “costings” for the next Labour Manifesto (just like the last two). If you think Labour will fight the election with a “don’t worry your little heads about costs, it doesn’t matter” approach, you’re mistaken
All your words not mine.
There is no such thing as 'costed' when it comes to deficit spending. You can only enact change or growth by putting more in to the public purse than you take out.
It is the reason why Labour were unable to offer as big a plan for energy as then the Tories.
That approach is economically doomed from the start.
I don't mean this absolutely personally but why are Labour supporters always willing to accept such low level goals?
The Labour plan was for a shorter period, which is why it wasn’t as “big”. You’re just parroting the attack lines used against Labour by the Tories. “Pick a different time period and compare” is the oldest trick in the book. And that’s what happens when the opposition announce their polices first, they are quickly reframed by the government, which is one of the reasons you don’t firm up all policy years before an election.
At last! Something to actually get behind.
Yup, but it's hardly the first time that Starmer has come up with excellent proposals, he is perfectly capable of doing so. That's how he became party leader.
At the end of that article which you link it mentions that a new Opinium poll in today's Observer gives Labour a 5% lead which considering the circumstances isn't huge (although it was mostly taken before the mini budget) so Labour really need policies to inspire voters.
What is more worrying is another article in the Guardian:
However, the Labour leader said in an interview with the Observer there would be no deal – before or after the election – that would see him back a change. Asked if Labour’s manifesto would include pledges on electoral reform, he said: “No, it’s not a priority for me.”
Which begs the question - what is the actual point of the Labour Party annual Conference?
It would appear that the Labour Party is run as a one-man personal fiefdom and the opinions of nearly half a million members are of no importance. The annual conference seems to be no more than an exercise in which the party leader tells hundreds of thousands of members what they need to support and fight for.
In a democratic organisation you would expect the membership to have a significant influence in what went into the party manifesto.
And it's not Starmer who is to blame for this, he inherited this situation. There was a time when the Labour Conference could insist on policies becoming manifesto commitments. Indeed Conservative Party Conferences were much ridiculed for being pointless show managed events without any democratic debate. The person who changed it all was that champion of control- freakery Tony Blair.
Although others since him, including Jeremy Corbyn, did nothing to change this quite frankly deplorable situation.
What else grates me is the Tories wear tax cuts to the rich on their chest!
But Labour won't do the same for spending into the economy to support the poor. The Tories will absolutely stand behind their failed ideology of serving their archetypes.
Labour won't go anywhere near theirs!
Won’t they…?
The Labour plan was for a shorter period, which is why it wasn’t as “big”. You’re just parroting the attack lines used against Labour by the Tories. “Pick a different time period and compare” is the oldest trick in the book
Why didn't Labour aim bigger? What is there to lose?
Time and time again excuses for Labour inadequacy.
I'm not parotting anything. I never thought Labour's plan was extensive enough. Even for a short term solution.
Labour put too much emphasis on fully costed rather than helping the poor.
You see the bullshit here yet?
Won’t they…?
Nope because the current Labour party doesn't really have one. They are terrified to be seen dolling money out to the underserving.
Scared of their own shadow.
Yet Truss is happy with looking after their lot.
Why is that? Why are Labour so obsessed with helping the *working* family as opposed to simply the left-behinds?
At the end of that article which you link it mentions that a new Opinium poll in today’s Observer gives Labour a 5% lead which considering the circumstances isn’t huge (although it was mostly taken before the mini budget) so Labour really need policies to inspire voters
Really that's staggeringly bad.
Some of us really did get shot down for pointing out Truss was not useless in the context of support.
Although even I can't see the mini-budget surviving.
but it’s hardly the first time that Starmer has come up with excellent proposals
True, but we cynics have been begging for policies and this is quite a policy. It also defines a clear objective and mission which is light years away from the tories backwards looking surrender to the fossil fuel corporations and billionaire elite. This really gives people something to vote for.
Why is that? Why are Labour so obsessed with helping the *working* family as opposed to simply the left-behinds?
Realistically, I'd guess thats the target deomgraphic for getting their vote so they can actually get into power and do something. Like the Tories appealing to pensioners.
Realistically, I’d guess thats the target deomgraphic for getting their vote so they can actually get into power and do something. Like the Tories appealing to pensioners.
So change your politics to suit Tory voters rather than substantiate your own much better ideas?
I mean - Tory policies have delivered the outcomes we have today so yeah why not run with them.
It's the most terrible idea in politics. Because once you're in power you will be impotent to do anything because you're too scared to implement your own ideology/pragmatism - for being thrown out at the next election.
Tory forever then?
People in work with families to support shouldn’t be dismissed as natural Tory voters, they absolutely should be seen as open to persuading to vote otherwise at the next election.
but it’s hardly the first time that Starmer has come up with excellent proposals
Well how much of an excellent idea it is depends on the detail. The environmental improvement is the only realistically benefit, which of course is very important and gets my support.
But the promise of cheaper bills and well paid jobs are just pipedreams if the current trend of public financing of projects for corporate ownership continues. Such large scale transformative projects need to be kept in public ownership if the benefits are to be realised for the whole country, and not just the shareholders.
Labour would keep 19% basic rate but reinstate 45% top rate of income tax, says Keir Starmer – UK politics live
So Starmer wants to follow two historical Tory tax decisions?
(There was a 50% tax rate in 2010 before the Tories lowered it to 45%.)
Does he have any better ideas of his own? Why can't it be a higher tax rate than 45% I mean it's not as if we couldn't do with it.
Or a lower than 19% tax rate for standard rate. Why numbers the Tories have chosen?
Both numbers created by the Tories.
Pre bankers budget but the truss bounce appears to have been rather flat
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1574028507017089028?t=et2_-sKhb6avCHruGg3TTQ&s=19
So Starmer wants to follow two historical Tory tax decisions?
Anything Labour say you will paint as “Tory”. Even when they are going against the Tory government’s give away to the rich. Give it up. How bloody convoluted is this attempt?!? It isn’t funny. It’s sinister. Promising to reverse the removal of the 45% tax band will mean more progressive taxation under Labour than under this Tory government. And that won’t be the end of Labour’s tax changes if they form the next government, it is just a straight answer to the question “will you reverse the tax changes announced in the mini-budget” in a clear way that every voter can understand.
Edit. I see its been mentioned but ignored as it doesn't suit the narratuve
Labour on course for majority of 56, MRP poll suggests
Labour is currently on course to win a majority of 56 in the next election, new polling suggests.
Still tighter than that suggests. Geographic spread of votes and all that. Lots of work for Labour to do! It’s looking more promising at this point than any of us would have predicted if asked in 2019 though, isn’t it?
Read the article. Thats taking into accout the geographical spread and boundary changes.
Read it earlier. Lots of seats mentioned could slip back to being predicted Tory wins with very little vote swing back to them. Labour need to be more than 10 points up come the election. Our voting system and current age, social and geographic distribution is now heavily helpful for the Tories. Obviously, I want the next PM (well next one to win a general election) to be Labour. Lots still to do. Truss helps though (yes I do still think that).