Forum menu
Starmer is wrong on electoral reform (and on Bet365 money) but this is neither news and nor does his personal opposition matter much. As the article linked to says, PR is a hot topic for the National Policy Forum, and in the boring and bureaucratic world of Labour polict formation, its the NPF and NEC that form policy – not Starmer
Simple fact - he never does anything remotely appealing or progressive, and nothing he previously said sticks with anything he says currently.
Dress it up how ever you want.
Your anger about Starmer will consume you
Not compared to the anger consumption of the Tory threads.
Starmer has simply stripped the hope out of politics.
I’m hopeful, despite reading this thread of doom. Try breaking out of the doom spiral, things can be turned around. Step one is kick the Tories out. Many more necessary steps after that, of course, but without the first one…
He makes lots of points.
its the NPF and NEC that form policy – not Starmer.
I wish that was true. The actual reality is that one man, and yes it is always a man, decides policy. The influence he exerts on the policy making institutions is massive. The NPF hardly meets and neither it nor the NEC is ever likely to publicly clash with the Labour Party Leader over a major policy decision.
They do provide a useful public relations exercise though so that the pretence that the Labour Party is a fully democratic organisation can be maintained.
The supreme authority within the Labour Party should be the annual Labour Party Conference as it is far more representative of the Labour Party than either the NPF or the NEC.
We know what the Labour Party's veiws on proportional representation are:
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/labour-party-conference-backs-proportional-representation/
Totally ignoring the wishes of Conference renders it a pointless public relations exercise. Much like the Tory Party Conference it is expected to do no more than provide rapturous applause for the the TV cameras when required, such as straight after the Party Leader's Conference speech when he parades among delegates with his adoring wife holding his hand.
This is the reality of UK politics today.
things can be turned around. Step one is kick the Tories out. Many more necessary steps after that, of course, but without the first one…
Agreed. Step two kick Starmer out and replace him with someone who has a commitment to fight for the interests of ordinary working people, not a self-serving careerist on a personal mission of self-fulfillment.
Who would you see him replaced by?
I mean, I agree*, but also, long ago, I and others suggested some successors… where as…
[ *that I would like to see him replaced, not with your character assassination ]
I seem to remember that you thought he should be replaced by another senior Labour politician, who did you suggest, I can't remember?
As I have previously said I don't think Starmer is the problem, it's the Labour Party that has a problem. Replacing Starmer with another self-serving careerist will achieve nothing significant, even if they have a tad more charisma than him.
But yeah, step one..... kick the Tories out. You can't turn things round without doing that. Step two, don't replace them with people who essentially are barely distinguishable from them.
And actually revelle in the fact that they are close to the Tories politically by claiming, among things, that they occupy "the centre". Although imo they are far too modest about how right-wing they are.
You said “step two” was to replace him. Who with?
I’d rather he was replaced before an election, have said that for three years now, but have always accepted Labour don’t do that to their leaders. And they won’t replace him (quickly) if they win the election either. So, it’s either him as PM for at least four years, or another term for the Tories. Everything else is noise.
nothing he previously said sticks with anything he says currently.
Not really true here, is it? Starmer's never been in favour of PR.
Neither was Corbyn - although tbf he wanted a constitutional convention that might have considered PR.
You said “step two” was to replace him. Who with?
I have just told you but you are not listening. I am not naming personalities, politics isn't about personalities for me - that's your game. For me it's about policies, priorities, and a commitment to fight for the interests of ordinary working people.
Once again I repeat that the Tories should not be replaced by someone who is a self-serving careerist with no ideological commitment to ordinary people.
The Labour Party has either got to change so it is no longer a vehicle for the self-fulfillment of careerists, and goes back to its founding principles, or it needs to be replaced by another people's party which ordinary people can confidently trust to represent their interests.
The only thing that has held the Labour Party together for the last 75 years is First Past The Post and fear. It's time to change that.
Two party politics is fairly unique to Britain among comparable countries, as is Britian's commitment to First Past The Post, go figure Sherlock.
Starmer’s never been in favour of PR.
Just always full of shit?
What's this all about then?
"I also think on electoral reform, we’ve got to address the fact that millions of people vote in safe seats and they feel their voice doesn’t count. That’s got to be addressed. We will never get full participation in our electoral system until we do that at every level.”
- Sir Keir Starmer
So he wants electoral reform but he also wants to keep First Past The Post? This man talking mealy-mouthed gobbledygook is very likely to be our next Prime Minister in a few month's time.
Obviously Starmer made that comment above a couple of months before he was elected party leader and he was desperate to say anything at all that might help him to win the election.
I am actually really looking forward to Starmer as PM, it is going to be such a wake-up call. Hopefully the Tories will be reduced to a demoralised and discredited rump which pose no serious threat. Without them as a distraction the serious debate can progress.
“I also think on electoral reform, we’ve got to address the fact that millions of people vote in safe seats and they feel their voice doesn’t count. That’s got to be addressed. We will never get full participation in our electoral system until we do that at every level.”
A second chamber elected using PR seems to be the most likely first term national level constitutional change, and would fit with that quote. Keeping (or rather bringing back) single transferable vote for mayoral elections as well.
Read the quote:
we’ve got to address the fact that millions of people vote in safe seats and they feel their voice doesn’t count.
How the hell is millions of votes in "safe seats" anything to do with the House of Lords ffs?
He was very clearly referring to the House of Commons. Millions of people have not been calling for proportional representation in the House of Lords.
In the quote he talks about "electoral reform", how the **** could he have meant the House of Lords when there are no elections there to "reform".
Plus the House of Lords cannot frustrate the will of the House of Commons, so proportional representation in the House of Commons without proportional representation in the House of Commons is meaningless.
But well done for attempting to be as disingenuous as Starmer Kelvin, that must be quite a challenge!
Because, if you get one vote for the representative for your seat, and one for the upper house… you can actually vote for your first preference party with your second vote, and have it count. If, for example, the Green Party had just 1 MP in the lower house, but 10%+ of representatives in the upper house… well… you’re a smart guy… you can work out how that’s different to what we currently have… and where it might take us in future.
you’re a smart guy… you can work out how that’s different to what we currently have… and where it might take us in future.
You are probably being too generous but I am not so daft to believe that it would make any significant difference whatsoever. My fourth paragraph deals with that.
What I am certain though is that it would still leave voters with two basic choices Conservative or Labour, it would maintain the status quo. Which of course is precisely Keir Starmer's intention.
Edit : And none of that is here or there as it is perfectly obvious to any reasonable person that Starmer was clearly referring to the MPs and the House of Commons in his comment about "save seats" and the need for electoral reform.
I’m hopeful, despite reading this thread of doom. Try breaking out of the doom spiral, things can be turned around. Step one is kick the Tories out. Many more necessary steps after that, of course, but without the first one
I've no idea where you get the optimism from.
This reminds me of the debate where he supported public ownership - then he didn't but then everyone rallied around to look for meaning in his words that he supported some kind of public ownership that wasn't nationalisation. Then he didn't ultimately support state ownership.
What's it gonna take for you to realise investing time with this charlatan is likely to lead to massive disappointment?
All that's going on is the Tories are so bad that people will accept anything especially in the Labour Party.
I mean the utter jerk is still talking about freezing council tax, and a windfall tax that will apparently pay for everything.
it would still leave voters with two basic choices Conservative or Labour, it would maintain the status quo
If we have a PR elected upper house, and people think that their PR vote is still a choice between Conservatives or Labour… well, that would suggest that far more than the voting system needs to change to increase plurality in our politics, doesn’t it.
I mean the utter jerk is still talking about freezing council tax, and a windfall tax that will apparently pay for everything.
You can keep pretending that taxes don’t matter, and Labour shouldn’t talk about them… but it’s bobbins.
What’s it gonna take for you to realise investing time with this charlatan is likely to lead to massive disappointment?
I no longer believe a word that comes out of his mouth, and I don't think I'm alone.
It's funny looking back on this thread. It's almost like Starmer has gone out of his way to piss off individuals or small groups of people. With every U-turn and every broken promise he just pisses of a few people at a time but now the tone seems overwhelmingly negative. The frog has been boiled.
Anyway, doesn't matter. The UK's election system is fundamentally broken so pissing off the majority has little influence on the outcome of elections.
He thinks so long as he panders to racists in a few key seats he'll win. And he's probably right.
now the tone seems overwhelmingly negative
It’s just the same few people saying the same things, in the same negative tone, looping around and around.
🔁
You can keep pretending that taxes don’t matter, and Labour shouldn’t talk about them… but it’s bobbins.
I'd like think my point is stronger than that rough interpretation.
The bobbins bit is pretending the same windfall is going to pay for everything.
You've got it back to front.
And no one ever said we shouldn't talk about taxes or they don't matter. Yet again I'm surprised you have joined the ranks of misunderstanding what MMT says about taxes.
It's the dismissive tone that gets me especially after loads of posts about the subject. Every time you don't push back against taxes paying for things you give the power for the government and the the opposition to say they can't afford things.
I can't see how a progressive can maintain that position with a straight face.
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1650471252828536834?t=smoFNLWPogmYX9iqKKvJ0A&s=19
More rubbish
https://twitter.com/RachelReevesMP/status/1649014352693829634?t=T1px36aC0pXJYhijcprcdw&s=19
Ch4 found their stats to not add up for the energy windfall.
It's them who's talking bobbins.
It’s just the same few people saying the same things, in the same negative tone, looping around and around.
Only reacting to what's being offered up by Lord Starmer and co.
Talking about where the tax burden should be shifted to is basic politics. We all know that “paid for” is the wrong language for you, but for the vast majority of people, that’s how they understand things, it’s their over simplistic model of how things work. Labour need to win an election, not try teach the world MMT at every opportunity… that’s your job 😘. Hypothecated tax cuts/raising is bobbins for sure… so it doesn’t need to “add up”, just illustrate the choices to be made by government. Let the fossil fuel companies take the money… and raise costs for households instead… why are the government making those choices? And it’s local election time… local taxes being forced up by central government decisions is the way to link local and national politics, it makes sense to focus on that for the national level element of the local election campaigns.
Talking about where the tax burden should be shifted to is basic politics. We all know that “paid for” is the wrong language for you, but for the vast majority of people, that’s how they understand things, it’s their over simplistic model of how things work. Labour need to win an election, not try teach the world MMT at every opportunity… that’s your job 😘.
But but but - they will be undone on the concept of windfall paying for everything on its own terms.
We are not talking about Labour going full MMT just the constant knot tying of windfall paying for stuff. It will catch them out.
For the record tax the **** out of the rich.
Windfall taxes are needed to prevent fossil fuel companies from keeping the money. And Sunak’s cunning loop holes that let Shell and others avoid them by investing in future extraction is a double whammy… “keep the money if you promise to help the world burn”… no thanks. Linking this to other taxation decisions, that are on people’s minds during local elections, is simple politics…
For the record tax the **** out of the rich.
Well, indeed. Not what’s currently happening though. And this campaign mentioning both windfall taxes and council tax is part of challenging that.
It’s just the same few people saying the same things, in the same negative tone, looping around and around.
And an ever dwindling number who jump in to try to defend the indefensible.
”Jumping” into this thread is dull and pointless. Part of that is down to Starmer. But a big part of it is the endless doom looping about him by a barely phonebox filling cohort of detractors/distractors. The thread that eats itself. No one even reads it now, never mind contributes.
But a big part of it is the endless doom looping about him by a barely phonebox filling cohort of detractors/distractors.
Possibly.
Although I don't see anyone on the opposite side who is actively enthusiastic about Starmer. The defense inevitably comes down to, 'Well, you just want the Tories to win, don't you, huh, huh??'
I think the number of people in the UK who are angry at Starmer would fill a bit more than a phone box.
People who are enthusiastic about him on the other hand...
Have we had any comments on the City result yet?
Makes you think....
an ever dwindling number who jump in to try to defend the indefensible.
Why would I when the four of you seem so happy and optimistic?🤔
Also, there's a limit to the number of times I can be arsed making the same points over and over. Whatever, politics should be boring. Bring on Starmer 😁
Have we had any comments on the City result yet?
Starmer is probably too busy smashing up trains or stealing Stone Island jackets or whatever else it is that confirmed football hooligans do.
I no longer believe a word that comes out of his mouth, and I don’t think I’m alone.
I expect that will be a major attack line for the Tories during the election campaign. Focusing on how he has repeatedly contradicted himself on previously stated positions, on all the major issues, will paint him as someone who is totally untrustworthy, which frankly he is.
I won't be difficult for the Tories to give voters a multitude of examples of Starmer saying one thing and then later saying the complete opposite. He will be portrayed as someone who will say whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear and will help him to get elected. Which of course was his strategy for winning the Labour Party leadership election.
The Tories have for a while been pointing out Keir Starmer's dishonesty and inconsistencies but it has been low-level stuff, I expect them to keep their powder dry mostly for the big push during the election campaign. No point flogging the line now so that it becomes tired by the time of the general election campaign and doesn't grab people's attention when they are in the process of making up their minds. Besides, as general election day approaches Starmer is likely to contradict his previous positions more and more.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/02/24/cant-trust-keir-starmer-master-inconsistencies/
Voters aren't comfortable with voting for the unknown, "better the devil you know" will resonate with them, and it probably helps to explain why John Major unexpectedly won the 1992 general election. Many voters will look at Sunak and at least feel that they know what to expect from him, rightly or wrongly they will feel that they can trust what he says, Starmer will not provide that reassurance.
I still believe that in all probability Keir Starmer will be the next prime minister, however I also believe that the Tories will in all likelihood do far better than they deserve.
Well, indeed. Not what’s currently happening though. And this campaign mentioning both windfall taxes and council tax is part of challenging that.
On such an insignifant level to be almost useless. People aren't loving the confusing time-travel council tax freeze.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1651891976982102016?s=20
”Jumping” into this thread is dull and pointless. Part of that is down to Starmer. But a big part of it is the endless doom looping about him by a barely phonebox filling cohort of detractors/distractors. The thread that eats itself. No one even reads it now, never mind contributes.
I don't find it dull and pointless really - just another thread.
I find the constant suprise of Tories acting like ****s dull and pointless - enough to make me more critical of the place the opposition have gone to not provide us with good solutions.
People who are enthusiastic about him on the other hand…
Yes it would make a change if people who nailed their support to the Starmer flag would get an opinion on what it means to carry on the very political amnd economic system that the Tories have thrived on but in Labour colours.
There's an inabilty to recognise policies make a big difference to people's lives as opposed to five million thoughts on expensive wall paper.
Whatever, politics should be boring.
Boring but never inspirational enough to make a real difference eh?
Also, there’s a limit to the number of times I can be arsed making the same points over and over. Whatever, politics should be boring. Bring on Starmer 😁
Indeed, Scandinavian politics is very boring. All they do is debate things because the system of government means that consensus between at least some parties is necessary to get anything done. This can go on for years and sometimes even decades for particularly contentious issues. Debate, compromise, debate, compromise...
That's how politics should be boring. Not a boring man with no discernible convictions being given a massive majority based on a minority of the vote.
Here's a challenge. Without mentioning the Tories, why are you so keen to 'Bring on Starmer'?
Scandinavian politics is very boring
Not sure I'd agree, considering the most populous Scandi country just elected a bunch of Sieg Heil-ing "reformed" fascists. That's a lot of things, but not boring.
That’s a lot of things, but not boring.
OK, so what has happened since the election.
https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/sweden/
They are in government (kind of), but their popularity is steadily declining. It' s the same pattern repeated across all properly functioning democracies where the anti-mainstream parties gain popularity by making promises and blaming immigrants. Once in power they find themselves limited in what they can actually do and people lose interest in them.
Contrast that with the UK where UKIP was able to stay an anti-mainstream party but managed to drag the Tories and hence Labour further and further to the right until the UK is where it is now.
So yes, neo-Nazis are in the Swedish government. And it's been just as boring as ever.
Labour are slowly losing some of the support that Truss gave them wrapped up in a bow… but still well up on before Starmer became leader.
https://twitter.com/europeelects/status/1652001265021333504?s=21
neo-Nazis are in the Swedish government. And it’s been just as boring as ever.
Today's "boring" political news:
I think Kinnock lost the race for the 92 election approaching the last fence, by trying to be a bit too charismatic at that election victory rally they held... the day before votes were cast.
He'd done all the hard work, banishing militant and moving the party back from don't scare the horses territory to err.... scaring the horses.
"We're allll- rrright!!!!"
If you're boring, (like Starmer is) then for God's sake don't try to be charismatic. And stay away from beaches.
I think Kinnock lost the race for the 92 election approaching the last fence, by trying to be a bit too charismatic at that election victory rally they held… the day before votes were cast.
I don't think there's any evidence that the Sheffield rally cost Labour the election.
He’d done all the hard work, banishing militant
He didn't. It was when Michael Foot was Labour Leader that Militant was declared a proscribed organisation and its leadership were all expelled - nine years before the 1992 general election.
Any expulsions during Neil Kinnock's time as leader was of inconsequential individuals - their leadership had already been expelled and their newspaper, which was the gel that held Militant together, banned from sale at all Labour Party events.
The reason Neil Kinnock is often associated with the expulsion of Militant and not Michael Foot is because of one speech that Kinnock made at a Labour Party conference.
Yup, that speech.
https://twitter.com/jrc1921/status/1653304050769698816?s=20
https://twitter.com/jrc1921/status/1653299817731301376?s=20
Truly a crap alternative to what we should have.
https://twitter.com/jrc1921/status/1653322579149504512?s=20
Where does the growth come from ?
He's playing the Tory hymn sheet again and again.
In Epsom we are fighting a massive housing development of the green belt.
Only a handful of Residents Assocation councillors want it.
Even the Tories are against it.
Now starmer has declared a war on nimbys and promised building everywhere.
The man is a colossal ****. No one in Epsom is going to vote labour.
Is he alone in his Tory wannabe ambitions or are the whole lot scumbags?
Is he alone in his Tory wannabe ambitions or are the whole lot scumbags?
He's done his absolute best for the public to cite - 'all politicians are the same.'
In Epsom we are fighting a massive housing development of the green belt.
The south east needs more housing. Where d'you propose it goes?
Where d’you propose it goes?
Not in their back yard presumably.
I was up in Newcastle recently visiting my folks. North of the city in the former green belt where before there were only run down former pit villages (one of which my folks still live in), there are new housing estates as far as the eye can see. Whole new villages/towns have sprung up along with new businesses, factories, retail parks and other things like schools and hospitals. Are the locals complaining? Are they bollocks! They're happy that someone is finally investing some money in their area instead of it being a post-industrial wasteland harking back to the 1970s.
No one in Epsom is going to vote labour.
Is he alone in his Tory wannabe ambitions or are the whole lot scumbags?
It's weird to identify the anti-NIMBY policy as "Tory wannabe" because it's the opposite of what the Tories have done. The Tories have just given up on taking control of planning law to encourage housebuilding because they can't be bothered to fight their own local parties and NIMBYs on this.
The south east needs more housing. Where d’you propose it goes?
No it doesn't. It needs a 100% foreign buyer tax so that British homes are for British people to live in not investment opportunities.
The cost of moving needs to be seriously looked at. When my mil in her 4 bed house looked at moving the sheer cost of it made no sense. She is better spending the £40k on heating and carers.
That's a family home that could be fully utilised not one that needs building on the green belt.
If people are serious about affordable housing, build them and sell them at cost.
Ps Epsom is the most densely populated borough in Surrey.
PPS we get grumpy enough when our trails have gravel put on them ,how do you think I feel about having housing estates put on them.
We need to build more homes. Doing something about empty investment homes is a good idea though. Not sure why UK citizens and companies should be allowed to deliberately leave homes empty though. Or sit on building approved land for decades as an investment asset.
Anyway I notice Starmer is doing his best to prove the points of MMTers everywhere. He's going to abandon his pledge to abolish tuition fees. Apparently we're in a 'different economic situation', in other words 'we can't afford it'. If ever there was something we can't afford to do, limiting access to education for our kids is it. But Starmer doesn't care about that, he only cares about not rocking the boat and perpetuating the myth that there is a limited amount of money to spend on things like education and healthcare. He's an idiot.
We need to build more homes
We also need to build the right type of homes.
I am curious how Newcastle managed to get all the facilities built out as well though. Round here we just get the homes without any increase in infrastructure. The only positive is since they are large "exec" homes not that many people move in.
Well, reframing what “affordable housing” is for developers, basically removing the requirement for them to be included in building programmes… there’s part of the “right type of homes” problem.
If ever there was something we can’t afford to do, limiting access to education for our kids is it.
Agree 100%
Anyway I notice Starmer is doing his best to prove the points of MMTers everywhere. He’s going to abandon his pledge to abolish tuition fees. Apparently we’re in a ‘different economic situation’, in other words ‘we can’t afford it’. If ever there was something we can’t afford to do, limiting access to education for our kids is it. But Starmer doesn’t care about that, he only cares about not rocking the boat and perpetuating the myth that there is a limited amount of money to spend on things like education and healthcare. He’s an idiot.
He's setting himself up for an almighty battle of "Growth" v "Fiscal prudence" v "Spending". You dumb-**** stop talking about growth in the same breath as generating taxes to pay for things. It's preposterous, vacant and incomplete politics - not recognising the UK on life-support economically.
Why are they so stupid and lacking in vision? Has 40 years of Thatcherism and beyond numbed everyone's heads?
I know it's not going to happen but I hope they get a bit of a wake-up call on May 4th.
Why are they so stupid and lacking in vision? Has 40 years of Thatcherism and beyond numbed everyone’s
heads?
It is like a mass brainwashing that has got to most people. The first thing any political interviewer on TV asks is "where is the money coming from" irrespective of what proposal is being discussed and nobody ever responds with a proper explanation on how it actually works.
Unfortunately the last time Labour ran for election, its leader was firing off last minute, madcap and totally unpriced proposals (free internet for everyone!), so it's an overcorrection to that.
TBF rone you've lost patience trying to explain the economic theories you espouse here to what is largely quite an educated audience. Are the labour party going to explain MMT to Brenda from Bristol in short words and three sentences? If not you're wasting your time. This stuff just doesn't cut through.
Unfortunately the last time Labour ran for election, its leader was firing off last minute, madcap and totally unpriced proposals (free internet for everyone!), so it’s an overcorrection to that.
"unpriced" sounds a lot like "where is the money coming from"
Are the labour party going to explain MMT to Brenda from Bristol in short words and three sentences?
Why does Brenda from Bristol need to know how the UK economy works. She just needs to know how society will be made fairer, how her quality of life could improve etc,.
Don't lie to her by pretending there is no choice to improve anything because we can't afford it.
This stuff just doesn’t cut through.
No one is suggesting the labour party should be lecturing voters on the mechanisms of govt finances. What they should be saying though is that abolishing tuition fees, better hospitals and schools and a well paid public sector workforce is not only affordable, but necessary and beneficial for everyone in the country. It's a simple message, be the party of proactivity and hope, rather than agreeing with the tories that the govt can't do anything or that it's not it's job to do these things. No one wants to vote for someone who spends all their time telling them why they can't do stuff.
What they should be saying though is that abolishing tuition fees, better hospitals and schools and a well paid public sector workforce is not only affordable, but necessary and beneficial for everyone in the country.
I have to agree with you again there Dazh.
Unfortunately the last time Labour ran for election, its leader was firing off last minute, madcap and totally unpriced proposals (free internet for everyone!), so it’s an overcorrection to that.
So what? So the opposite of doing stuff is not doing stuff.
Corbyn/McDonell didn't need to price their manifesto but they did (meadway is tax and spend) and if they'd hit half of their targets we'd be so much better off.
Just calling it madcap is a recipe to never make the big improvements we need.
All we need is people like you to make sure we don't get this stuff.
Madcap is what we got by the way.
TBF rone you’ve lost patience trying to explain the economic theories you espouse here to what is largely quite an educated audience. Are the labour party going to explain MMT to Brenda from Bristol in short words and three sentences? If not you’re wasting your time. This stuff just doesn’t cut through
Apart from the time when it cut through and a good chunk got a wage paid for by the government during 20/21.
And kept the economy from total collapse whilst protecting everyone.
You mean that stuff?
I'm here to talk economic details and pushback against lack of money that is all. More of us that get it more of us that can make a noise.
Unfortunately the last time Labour ran for election, its leader was firing off last minute, madcap and totally unpriced proposals (free internet for everyone!), so it’s an overcorrection to that.
We need infrastructure that reaches everyone, and everyone can use. Current course of action (pay BT lots of subsidy for leaving people/companies/communities with no/slow connections as they roll out new infrastructure at a snail's pace, and have a "market" where one large company, that was previously a publicly owned monopoly, can buy out any competitor that looks to be in position to undercut their prices at scale) isn't delivering the results for many areas of the UK. At least Labour proposed a way forward at the last election. Agree that it should have been in the manifesto, as "extras" of that scale that are announced as if thought up on the hoof make voters think that you're just listing "nice to haves" rather than announcing cohesive policy. Rubbish campaigning meant it wasn't given a chance by the pubic... but an interesting policy with merit IMHO. The charge of "not thought through" was too easily laid at the feet of Labour, with this and other policies.
No one is suggesting the labour party should be lecturing voters on the mechanisms of govt finances
People seem to prefer the version where say we can't afford it! You can't have something.
Good old Brits.
Like the Monty Python sketch where the family lived in a cardboard box at the bottom of the sea.
No one is suggesting the labour party should be lecturing voters on the mechanisms of govt finances.
No one? One poster does nothing but that. And they're not alone.
Point about the last Manifesto for me is you aim high and hit half of those things - you're doing well.
(I didn't agree with Corbyn's need to show where the money was coming from of course because the media still found flaws.)
Ask James Meadway (the economist for the manifesto) - he's on a whole different planet about the financing - he was part of the problem. I've told him - as others have several times.
A left economist that thinks the rich pay for stuff for the less well off.
God help us and the problems that gives us.
No one? One poster does nothing but that. And they’re not alone
I'm not the Labour party though am I? And what I'm saying is - it's outrageous that Starmer and Reeves telling lies over government spending and then claiming growth is possible. That's a ridiculous position for a progressive party.
Every time they say this or say we can't have xyz then I will respond - that's the point of discussion. You want me to ignore them - for what reason? It's not beneficial.
If the country never gets beyond this one simple fact of spending- society will not get the stuff it needs and the economy will never do its thing, and people will be shafted.
Posters will go around on here in circles forever wondering why they can't have this and that. It's funny how they don't make the connection isn't it? No one was happy with the results of austerity and yet there's a route to correct it.
That's real doom loop. Not MMT.
MMT economists of merit have got very close to policy makers several times. It will happen.
Kelvin - for me you seem to like to sweep this part under the carpet. Yet the Labour party seem to be enthusiastically reducing what they've got to offer an electorate because of finances. It simply can't be ignored.
Let's see what the USA do about the debt-ceiling - always an interesting one. They can *choose* to default or just set another.
I think the Labour shadow cabinet replying "but MMT" when questioned about how they'll fund a policy would be utterly barking mad. MMT already happens. The public don't understand it. Send them all on the same online course you've taken if you want, but between now and the next election don't expect Labour to be explaining it to voters while appearing overly profligate and reaffirming the manufactured fears of voters who really have nothing to fear from a Labour government. Labour won't risk that.
Labour policy is currently too timid, too restrained... the over correction from 2019 policies too great... but the public can be brought on side as regards greater investment in education, health, energy, transport, housing without lessons on how government spending works (pretty much as Dazh said).
think the Labour shadow cabinet replying “but MMT” when questioned about how they’ll fund a policy would be utterly barking mad. MMT already happens. The public don’t understand it. Send them all on the same online course you’ve taken if you want, but between now and the next election don’t expect Labour to be explaining it to voters while appearing overly profligate and reaffirming the manufactured fears of voters who really have nothing to fear from a Labour government. Labour won’t risk that
You keep banging this drum, and like all left posters on here - want a progressive Government?
(Me on a course FFS) That's not what needs to be said. They just need to stop saying we can't have stuff because of government finances. It's a lie and it's disingenuous and not a reflection of economic truth.
No one's suggesting we all go on the mission I've been on for several years that just ridiculous. Which is why you keep citing it I reckon.
Just stay on the right side of truth and set a plan out to spend.
There's a lot of misrepresentation on here just to defend a theoretically left-wing party that keeps shifting rightwards - it says more about your willingness to accept poor outcomes.
without lessons on how government spending works (pretty much as Dazh said).
It's absolutely central to the debate when people believe that there is no money to spend.
You can't have one without the other because it is being used right now by Starmer as reason you can't have the things you and Dazh want.
I think you've contorted this debate to something it isn't for some reason.
I want the same things as you - mostly - but you're not going to get them whilst Starmer is saying we can't afford it.
After all the only reason MMT gets bought into these discussions is because people expect to challenge me. I don't need convincing. It's others. I think there's value in that.
(Tjagain and Mattoutandabout both don't believe it's technically possible? MMT curious I would say.)
I want the same things as you – mostly
I think so.
but you’re not going to get them whilst Starmer is saying we can’t afford it
Agreed.
But the answer isn't to suggest that we can afford any thing and everything without limit, which is what people hear when they get a simplified cut down explanation of MMT.
Explain that we can invest more, should invest more, must invest more, and indicate where that investment will be aimed.
Also explain changes to where money will be recovered by government, and where spending will be restrained.
[ eg - fossil fuel subsidies and tax breaks for newspaper owners and the like ]
But the answer isn’t to suggest that we can afford any thing and everything without limit, which is what people hear when they get a simplified cut down explanation of MMT.
.
Again no MMTer says without limit. You've added that bit on unnecessarily in my opinion.
You simply highlight the reason for more explanation, and force me to repeat myself!
There's a need to constantly challenge what Starmer is putting out because what he's saying is economically incoherent (as Sunak is too)- and politically not progressive either.
My focus is on Starmer saying we can't have stuff rather than MMT saying we can spend without limit.
"Unlimited access to government money to purchase whatever is needed and available." is exactly how I would frame it for the hard of hearing.
...is not the same as unlimited spending. I never say that. And people on here claim I do. Bullshit.
People misrepresenting MMT like to say that for obvious reasons.
Also explain changes to where money will be recovered by government, and where spending will be restrained
Commentators will still ask how are you going to pay for it. So you have to be informed about the process.