Forum menu
Yes, you can explain it to the commentators and interviewers on TV as Brenda from Bristol won't be watching that and in reality Brenda is not actually interested in how the economy works, she is interested in the results of any government.
Lying to her about not having money is just that, lying.
Q: How will you pay for it?
A: Our intention is to spend money on infrastructure and education, this is an investment in the countries future and is both necessary and worthwhile. The previous govt wasted 100s of millions on dodgy ppe deals, didnt chase up billions in dodgy covid deals. We will spend money where it is needed. Can we afford as a country to not spend on the NHS? To not improve the sewerage systems?
John Crace nails it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/02/keir-starmer-labour-tuition-fees-politics-sketch
Again no MMTer says without limit. You’ve added that bit on unnecessarily in my opinion.
You've certainly refined your argument from when you first made it but either you or daz, can't remember which, certainly put it across that way. It may not have been your intent or what you saw but it's certainly what others saw.
You could really have saved a lot of grief just by saying 'its not tax and spend, it's spend and tax' and just left it at that. There is an important distinction and it grossly over simplifies MMT if I've even half followed what you're saying but it's enough to start changing the way folk think.
Discussions about bonds and stuff goes way over most folks head and just reeks of the "magic money tree". K.I.S.S.
Q: How will you pay for it?
Well meaning but you didn't explain how it was paid for. It's not in your answer.
You explain why we should have the stuff, and that Tories piss money down the drain.
Agreed on all accounts but that's not explaining how it's being paid for it better still how spending works.
You could really have saved a lot of grief just by saying ‘its not tax and spend, it’s spend and tax’ and just left it at that. There is an important distinction and it grossly over simplifies MMT if I’ve even half followed what you’re saying but it’s enough to start changing the way folk think.
Saved a lot of grief? As in, people will just keep challenging and it will naturally expand.
On the other point I think people have mostly read other stuff into it and misunderstood the terminology. And yes perhaps I've refined things and cocked up here and there but I'm no academic either.
I think years ago I said spend before tax, but then debaters want an explanation of what borrowing is and so forth.
There is no leaving it as spend and tax, (STAB versus TABS) people then go - well what is the national debt etc? It's a complex area with many strands. Folk can always read the books and seek the experts for detailed info.
Probably the nature of debating on a forum.
Discussions about bonds and stuff goes way over most folks head and just reeks of the “magic money tree”. K.I.S.S.
Went over my head for a long time but I would say it's worth extrapolation.
I see the Sue Grey inquiry has amounted to absolutely nothing
Tories were really hoping for a scandal before locals
So the opposite of doing stuff is not doing stuff.
The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.
How many hospitals did the Corbyn government build? How many social workers did it recruit? How many internet bills did it reduce?
Saved a lot of grief? As in, people will just keep challenging and it will naturally expand.
I suppose yeah. Start at a very basic dilution and work from there. Its easier (in my mind anyway) to explain something basic with something progressively more advanced than to start 2 steps in and have to backtrack. Meanwhile those that aren't following the argument continue to latch 2 steps ahead with a flawed understanding.
On the other point I think people have mostly read other stuff into it and misunderstood the terminology. And yes perhaps I’ve refined things and cocked up here and there but I’m no academic either.
Totally agree there. I'm no teacher and struggle to explain stuff as well. And get frustrated.
I think years ago I said spend before tax, but then debaters want an explanation of what borrowing is and so forth.
There is no leaving it as spend and tax, (STAB versus TABS) people then go – well what is the national debt etc? It’s a complex area with many strands. Folk can always read the books and seek the experts for detailed info.
And that can be a good thing. Obviously there's a limit before anyone just says 'go and read X' but if people are engaging and obviously picking up points then you're at least getting the message across.
And on that, is there a decent starting point you can recommend for the casual reader? Website or book. You've actually piqued my interest and tbh even if anyone else disagrees it doesnt hurt to actually understand what it is they're disagreeing with!
John McDonnell dealt with it well when slightly more positive change was being proposed.
Unfortunately they had a leader that put a lot of people (yes Corbyn activated the youth vote but older people tended to dislike/distruct him)
And on that, is there a decent starting point you can recommend for the casual reader? Website or book. You’ve actually piqued my interest and tbh even if anyone else disagrees it doesnt hurt to actually understand what it is they’re disagreeing with!
'The deficit myth' is probably the most straightforward and comprehensive book by prof Stephanie Kelton.
Gimms website is a good UK resource.
https://gimms.org.uk/ put together by regular folk who wanted to know why there was money for the banks in the GFC
https://youtube.com/@RichardJMurphy
Richard Murphy has some good stuff and he's on the right side of the battle but sometimes doesn't help himself by being a little antagonistic with other economists, because he changes his language which can be confusing.
But he puts out of interesting stuff and does know BoE financing.
Murphy had a stream other night that was accessible and covered lots of bases.
https://www.youtube.com/live/b-aAoICdrmQ?feature=share
The MMT podcast is great with lots of good MMT big hitters and banking experts. Loads of episodes.
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9waWxldXNtbXQubGlic3luLmNvbS9yc3M?ep=14
Warren Mosler - the architect of MMT has good resources but he can be tricky to crack.
https://moslereconomics.com/mmt-white-paper/
He came from the banking world so he's a long way from politics and his insights are usually ahead of everyone else.
Prof Bill Mitchell in Oz is at left side politically and has a very robust blog.
Lots of good stuff about employment, and technical stuff.
https://billmitchell.org/blog/
Reeves spluttering her way through how things have changed for the worse and then coming out with zero response at all - other than Keir is a pragmatic guy.
He's not pragmatic he's impotent, with zero substance. That's why he's falling apart under questioning about tuition fees. He holds no will or ideas on how to change things.
The current feeling seems to be things have gotten so much worse - so Labour should do less. Because they've backed themselves into a fiscal corner actually.
https://twitter.com/ToryFibs/status/1653663981704192001?t=zNfdlshXlhYxNicvbHn3CA&s=19
You’ve certainly refined your argument from when you first made it but either you or daz
I've always talked about MMT with the condition of controlling inflation. I think what many of the sceptics do is hear the words 'the govt can create money to spend on stuff' and then automatically think that means 'so they can spend as much as they want'.
That being said there is an awful lot more the government could be doing and a lot of slack in the economy to do it. And then there's stuff which is simply just beneficial and necessary, like sending our kids to university without crippling them with debt, and paying nurses, doctors and teachers properly so we can recruit and retain them to run our hospitals and schools.
The frustration is that there seems to be a consensus among politicians, the media, and the public that we can't afford to do any of this stuff. We can afford it, we've always been able to afford it. But it needs people with some vision and courage to change the narrative. And to bring this back on topic, Starmer is doing the very opposite of that.
F***ing hell that Rachel Reeves car crash! Is the labour message to voters seriously going to be 'the tories crashed the economy so we can't afford to keep our promises or do any of the stuff that will benefit you. Sorry!'? Never in my life have I seen such cowardly, unambitious and frightened politicians as this lot. And they want to call themselves leaders!? Does she even realise that she's currently in an election campaign?
If they don't change tack very soon they're going to lose the next election. They're making Rishi Sunak look like the change candidate.
Above all the debating about politics and Brexit, and even the economic landscape - I'm so shocked that there aren't great minds out there figuring out the route to a better country. The right have had it too good for too long that it appears normal to marketise everything - at the expense of the state.
Markets are tools, if they don't work - replace them with something better.
Too much subservience to a system that everyone thought was working and has failed leaving everyone bereft of ideas and courage.
Other options are available.
Shit-a-brick - Labour = ruddy clueless!
We don't want pragmatic - we want someone to make radical changes.
Where are the adults in parliament! 😱
Beggars belief that these people (Tory and Labour) are the best they can put forward.
Beggars belief that these people (Tory and Labour) are the best they can put forward.
All depends who the "they" is that are putting them forward. They have to be MPs to start with and we know who elects MPs...
Beggars belief that these people (Tory and Labour) are the best they can put forward.
Not really, the best and brightest got the **** out of Dodge, this is what's left.
They have to be MPs to start with and we know who elects MPs…
They are selected by the party first. We can only vote for the clowns on the ballot paper.
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.
But it's what wins elections. Labour don't want to be seen as spend, spend, spend party as the tories will make much capital out of it, even though they have done exactly the same, with the added bonus of pouring a lot of that cash into certain peoples pockets, as well as absolutely s**t canning the economy in the process. Hypocritical from the tories? Yes, but they still have media allies, and social media to muddy the waters of the electorate. Anything goes in politics, and when it comes to the tories in particular, that anything has already gone.
Speaking of the electorate, the policy u-turn on Tuition fees is aimed at a few sets of voters, not just the wavering "moderate" tory voters, the red wall seats as well, nobody wants to see others getting a free ride on the taxpayer even though those students may possibly contribute large amount to the UK economy in return for the investment of a no tuition fee education. Unfortunately, the Cameron governments "hard working poor/scroungers" turned the already divided nation dial up to 11.
They are selected by the party first. We can only vote for the clowns on the ballot paper.
The two big parties cannot afford to have "maverick" MP's with what would be perceived as radical ideas that spook what looks like a smaller section of voters that are required to win elections under the FPTP system,(None of the big parties want to share power, so FPTP stays)they have to tow the party line. That party line is increasingly influenced by think tanks, and in particular with the tories, Tufton street and Washington DC, so unless some of you "radical" folks have got a sizeable wedge of cash tucked away in the cayman islands, then perhaps you can start a think tank masquerading as a charity and get lobbying.
I can't remember who it was, but someone here believed that the situation had to get far worse before the people of the country would rise up and demand change to a fairer system, more socialist I think, well you may get part of your wish...the bit where it gets far worse, I can see Labour only lasting one term in power, and then the National Conservatives coming to power. With the rise of the far right in places like the US, Sweden, Hungary, Poland, and Italy, basing their anti immigration politics on the "values" of those arriving not being compatible their Christian conservative values, and so on, thanks to FPTP they would gain power in the UK on a minority of the vote. From there on I think it could get bloody.
So, politics is F****d basically, Just don't expect change to come from the inside.
But it’s what wins elections. Labour don’t want to be seen as spend, spend, spend party as the tories will make much capital out of it, even though they have done exactly the same, with the added bonus of pouring a lot of that cash into certain peoples pockets, as well as absolutely s**t canning the economy in the process.
What wins elections is distorting the truth to suit your agenda it appears.
Flip-side of the narrative is you can't fix things without government spending. It's simply not going to happen.
We've coasted so long on the idea of running out of money - that's what people believe. That's why we need to start hammering home what we can actually do and how we will do it. It's only because of letting people who don't understand how the economy works control the narrative.
I stumbled upon a clip with Starmer admitting that balancing the books was basically austerity thinking. What he says in that clip is perfect - if only we had a leader talking like that now.
https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1653672753893892096?s=20
Speaking of the electorate, the policy u-turn on Tuition fees is aimed at a few sets of voters, not just the wavering “moderate” tory voters, the red wall seats as well, nobody wants to see others getting a free ride on the taxpayer even though those students may possibly contribute large amount to the UK economy in return for the investment of a no tuition fee education. Unfortunately, the Cameron governments “hard working poor/scroungers” turned the already divided nation dial up to 11.
Look at how you framed this yourself.
Tory client journos looking very daft now
https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1653803722605047821?t=4l4qZVlBqzQKWxCxGXN6qA&s=19
https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1653775297307717633?t=5xF-x9YR4LLcll-cGRtVcQ&s=19
Ouch
(It is an old poll chap at savanta says he was on leave or something)
someone here believed that the situation had to get far worse before the people of the country would rise up and demand change to a fairer system, more socialist I think, well you may get part of your wish
Disaster socialism. "Soon the scales will fall from their eyes and they will see I was right along!". A close relative of Corbynism, where it's more important to be pure and on the backbenches than compromised and in power!
I think you need a bit more understanding of the Theses on Feuerbach. Starmer and Reeves proposing to change sfa.
Disaster socialism. “Soon the scales will fall from their eyes and they will see I was right along!”. A close relative of Corbynism, where it’s more important to be pure and on the backbenches than compromised and in power!
The guff spoken about ideological purity.
Think it was started by James O'Brien.
Simple point - the thing that has ruined the way the country has operated for decades - neoliberalism, and it's shift of wealth to the few - now can't have any push back because apparently it's ideologically pure to do so ?
So no fix then?
Centrist's have lost the plot because they don't have a position that pushes back against the Tories other than competence.
"If you'd only do it right it would work." Is no solution.
There was never any purity with Corbyn just solid ideas that would be totally rational and progressive in today's situation.
To be fair, it does seem incongruous to use the word "pure" about a man who took money from the Iranian state to present a TV call-in shows.
We don’t want pragmatic – we want someone to make radical changes.
TBF(ish) the last two Tory PMs have both promised "Radical change" The first one radically changed the tiles in the No.10 en-suite and then awarded radical PPE contracts to his chums, his successor Radically tried to un-cap banker's bonuses and radically spiked interest rates and inflation... Perhaps Labour hedging their bets that the public have had enough radicalism.
But I think they really are on the wrong tac, Lil' Rishi is going to try and sell himself on the same old "fiscally responsible" Tory trope over the next couple of years, all the while quietly implementing the same plan to run down public services in the name of austerity and efficiency to then flog the remnants as franchises to the private sector.
Labour keep falling into the "plausible funding model" trap in interviews, the focus groups have obviously told them that the floaters are terrified of the UK having imaginary mega-debt, so they end up accepting that premise as a starting point and don't want to get Gotcha'd for "Wild Un-costed spending promises"...
Reeve keeps getting sent up in front of the press and the same lines are wearing thin, apparently repealing Non-Dom status is going to pay for an awful lot of things, but the list keeps shrinking.
The shadow of Corbyn looms over it all, they want to promise to revive the public sector, renationalise the trains invest in the NHS and education but hey know they'll get shouted down by some Oxbridge journalist and pestered for detailed costings. Hence the watered down message people hear is that either "nothing will change but you'll get a slightly different Neo-Lib, centrist government" or else "Their lying and these socialists will sneak in and Starlin all over the home counties"...
Boris Got in by taking a total flyer on wild lies and gambling that the disaffected masses were willing to take a punt on an obvious grifter... I kind of feel like Kier needs to do something similar, stop worrying about trying to demonstrate some sort of credibility that nobody believes any politician has anymore and just go for the Tory Jugular at every opportunity. When someone asks about funding formulas, ask them if that even really matters when A&E visits take 6 hours before a nurse can see triage you, when we have working families living in poverty, using foodbanks and paying record sums for energy while the share holders still bank profits, and kids keep missing school days because the government is failing to negotiate effectively.
Basically He needs to Bench Reeve, let Raynor off the leash and start pushing hard on the quality of life and wealth gap buttons...
Basically He needs to Bench Reeve, let Raynor off the leash and start pushing hard on the quality of life and wealth gap buttons…
I want more Rayner and more Jess Philips punching people in their faces. Blair got elected because he had Prescott with him. Bernie Sanders and even Biden are popular because they were willing to get into with their opponents.
If some barking mad Tory is standing opposite you talking about how French asylum seekers want to change your dog's gender, you can't have two nerds referring to OBR memorandum footnotes. You have to have someone that's going to hit back and talk sense.
The guff spoken about ideological purity.
Think it was started by James O’Brien.
Was it not Kinnock? See the 1985 speech referenced on a previous page of this thread.
Comrades, it seems to me lately that some of our number become like latter-day public school-boys. It seems it matters not whether you won or lost, but how you played the game. We cannot take that inspiration from Rudyard Kipling. Those game players get isolated, hammered, blocked off. They might try to blame others – workers, trade unions, some other leadership, the people of the city – for not showing sufficient revolutionary consciousness, always somebody else, and then they claim a rampant victory. Whose victory? Not victory for the people, not victory for them. I see the casualties; we all see the casualties. They are not to be found amongst the leaders and some of the enthusiasts; they are to be found amongst the people whose jobs are destroyed, whose services are crushed, whose living standards are pushed down to deeper depths of insecurity and misery. Comrades, these are vile times under this Tory Government for local democracy, and we have got to secure power to restore real local democracy.
Was it not Kinnock? See the 1985 speech referenced on a previous page of this thread.
Oh I actually I don't know.
I was just having a go at JOB as he's always banging on about it and Corbyn in the Centrist-sphere.
I want more Rayner and more Jess Philips punching people in their faces.
It needs a hell of a lot more than mouthy women hurling insults. Rayner's silence and invisibility speaks volumes. Either Starmer has told her to keep quiet for fear of her putting off snowflake daily mail readers, or she's had a look around and decided it's already a busted flush and is keeping her distance in preparation for the approaching leadership election. Same goes for Philips. Doesn't look good either way.
I’ve enjoyed it when ed milliband of all people is let off the leash. He seems to have some fire in him.
Toynbee being a total moron. Playing the limited piggy bank logic.
There people are an embarrassment to solving society's problems.
I’ve enjoyed it when ed milliband of all people is let off the leash. He seems to have some fire in him.
Yep, he is coming across WAY better than when he was leader. Maybe that is because he is not now leader so pressures are different and maybe seeing more of the real person?
Toynbee being a total moron.
Scrolling through my news feed yesterday I came across the Guardian headline "Keir Starmer is right to U-turn on tuition fees. The funds will be better spent elsewhere"
Wondering who the **** wrote an article for the Guardian with that headline my curiosity got the better of me and I clicked. I soon as I saw "Polly Toynbee" I burst out laughing - the predictability was so obvious!😂
Needless to say I didn't bother reading the article, I don't think I have ever managed to read more than a few sentences of anything that Toynbee has written.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of tuition fees U-turns on pledges by politicians is never acceptable imo.
If the viability of issues are subject to events then it should never be the basis of a "pledge".
Abolition of tuition fees was one of Keir Starmer's "my pledge to you", which makes what he says worthless.
https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/
toynbees political journey is weird. Started off very much leftie and passionate. Became a centre right wing apologist.
Started off very much leftie
When? In 1983 she was a candidate for the SDP which split from the Labour Party because it considered the Labour Party to be too left-wing.
Edit: Even Tony Blair managed to stay in the Labour Party in 1983!
Well before that. I read her early books.
toynbees political journey is weird. Started off very much leftie and passionate. Became a centre right wing apologist.
She's clueless. The stuff she writes never adds up to me.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of tuition fees U-turns on pledges by politicians is never acceptable imo.
Well that and a government doesn't save money to spend money because it doesn't draw money from a pot of funds.
****ing brainless. Basic stuff.
So according to Wes Streeting Sir Keir Starmer only made his pledge to "Support the abolition of tuition fees and invest in lifelong learning" (pledge number 2) because at the time he thought the Tories wouldn't leave public finances "in such a mess".
Presumably three years ago when Starmer made the pledge he had thought that the Tories would leave a healthy growing economy........why?
Wes Streeting also said:
“I think the important thing is learning from the Liberal Democrats’ experience, you don’t go into a general election making promises you can’t keep"
But it's okay to go into a leadership election making promises that you can't keep? Why?
And why is there no need to apologise?
Labour obviously think they're going to be busy doing something in the next parliament because there won't even be time to repeal the anti-protest laws.
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/1655270520621879305?s=20
Labour obviously think they’re going to be busy doing something in the next parliament because there won’t even be time to repeal the anti-protest laws.
That's Labour all over, they don't want change, it suits them down to the ground to stay as 2nd biggest idiots with FPTP.
As I alluded to in the local election thread, they won't repeal anything the tories have done if they get elected, they will simply tread water for a term or two citing 'we're trying'...
...and then the status quo will be resumed when the tories enevitably get back in to carry on the planned destruction.
Et cetera.
they will simply tread water for a term or two citing ‘we’re trying’…
Whilst they might achieve some things, as the last labour government did, chances are those will be easily rolled back whereas the items they carried over from the tories will get normalised and allow the next tory government to double down on it.
I am confused as to what Lammy is trying to argue there. A lot of what they do should be replacing what shit the tories inflicted on us so yes that will need a lot of unpicking.
"The Public Order Act is profoundly anti-democratic and needs repealed. Scenes of peaceful protesters being arrested in the streets of London during the coronation were chilling and incompatible with democratic norms."
This is very true but I suspect that the reason Starmer won't want to repeal Tory anti-democratic laws is because he knows that they are likely to be very useful to him.
Expectations of a Labour government after the defeat of a Tory government are likely to be very high, also very likely will be the disappointment.
So it is quite likely that there will be more anti-government protests after the next general election than there has been in recent times.
Starmer isn't known for his tolerance of dissent and opposing opinions, there is no reason to believe that as prime minister his autocratic tendencies will somehow diminish.
Presumably three years ago when Starmer made the pledge he had thought that the Tories would leave a healthy growing economy……..why?
Well, he could reasonably have assumed a healthier economy, or at least an easier to turn around economy… unless he predicted Covid, Putin’s actions, and Truss & Kwarteng getting their little go at the wheel.
I am confused as to what Lammy is trying to argue there.
He’s just desperately trying to avoid the “Labour are on the side of the disruptors” claim… we might well want him to be standing chest out on the side of the more adventurous awkward environmental protestors etc… but, well, many voters don’t.
I am confused as to what Lammy is trying to argue there.
It's pretty clear what Lammy means when he says:
'We can't come into office picking through all the Conservative legislation and repealing it. It would take too much time.'
This means Labour just want the money and the retirement funds, they don't have time to actually do thier jobs.
I mean, it's fair enough, being a full time grifter at public expence to line your your own pockets is a profitable job...
...but it does require a modicum of attention, so as an MP you have to let your official duties slide for your own personal gain.
unless he predicted Covid, Putin’s actions
Well there's a couple of good excuses that the Tories can put the electorate to explain why they are leaving the country in such a mess......the Labour leader might even back them up on that!
The reality is that Starmer should never have made pledges on the basis of the Tories leaving a sound and healthy economy.
Politicians are very good at claiming that they can't possibly comment on "hypothetical" situations, and yet Starmer was very keen to make a pledge on tuition fees. Or to be more precise to say whatever he felt he needed to say to win an election. Which suggests the same level of honesty as a Tory.
Starmer was very keen to make a pledge on tuition fees. Or to be more precise to say whatever he felt he needed to say to win an election. Which suggests the same level of honesty as a Tory.
We can agree on some things! 😀
Well, he could reasonably have assumed a healthier economy, or at least an easier to turn around economy… unless he predicted Covid, Putin’s actions, and Truss & Kwarteng getting their little go at the wheel.
Why? I mean the economy had gone to a standstill before all of those things 2019/2020.
Starmer spent a whole lot of time supporting the government's actions during COVID too.
There's very little about Lammy other being a squirming two job hypocrit. His performance on QT was risible.
Not being able to pay tuition fees is not the fault of COVID or Putin in any way shape or form.
I mean the economy had gone to a standstill before all of those things 2019/2020.
You mean like this?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51459257
Very dissapointing from Lammy, I used to hold him in quite high esteem.
He's made some great speeches in the commons in previous years, but it seems now he's hiding behind his self perceived position and has become just another vaucous talking head.
You mean like this?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51459257/blockquote >
Exactly like that. Typical Tory numbers these days.
That's a larger point too - where exactly are these right leaning MPs expecting growth to come from post-pandemic if it was terrible pre-pandemic without the investment?
I think there was a slight uptick of GDP when awkwardly enough GPs were spending on medical stuff - well over a year ago.
Hardly a badge of honour for private enterprise.
And Wes Streeting the biggest automatic mouthpiece of Labour party propaganda.
https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1655123333820686336?t=RE3pfmX_PYztv0bkPj-1qg&s=19
Here we go again - you can't have stuff because of public finances. "Afford."
This is where believing you need to find the public sector from the private sector gets you.
The man is lying.
What else is particular dumb-ass about Labour's current line in the sand is that when the economy is in a mess that they should tighten the purse strings.
Totally back to front.
The more the economy and society has problems the more the state should step up with financial solutions.
We are heading for an almighty downturn.
https://twitter.com/flying_rodent/status/1655363381207998465?t=nIO6yVzHRrfTzGWODsgWHw&s=19
performatively hating the Tories while working your arse off to secure their project.
This x 100.
Centrist's don't get it.
Very dissapointing from Lammy, I used to hold him in quite high esteem.
Controversial opinion, but I thought Hawkwind was the peak of his career.
Expectations of a Labour government after the defeat of a Tory government are likely to be very high, also very likely will be the disappointment.
I don't know why you think expectations will be high. Anti EU, austerity, pro privatising the NHS.
Very dissapointing from Lammy, I used to hold him in quite high esteem.
Hoping for a cabinet seat
I think Lammy was outspoken on brexit, which of course struck a chord of agreement with a lot of us. However I wonder if you go back over his history if he has actually done much else of note.
I don’t know why you think expectations will be high.
Because a lot of people consider the current Tory government to be exceptionally bad, the worse ever according to some people, and a Labour government, they believe, will be a massive improvement.
For those reasons I believe that expectations will be high. You don't agree?
Not at all. expectations are IMO low and rightfully so
Well maybe your analysis is correct but you wouldn't generally expect to see an opposition party with a 21% lead over a governing party if voters didn't believe that they offered a massive improvement.
https://twitter.com/Omnisis/status/1654487077138968579
So why the huge Labour lead if voters don't expect a Labour government to be significantly different?
So why the huge Labour lead if voters don’t expect a Labour government to be significantly different?
Like the brexit vote, the voters will make the only decision offered to them. More of the same, or the potential for something different, even if they don't know what it is or don't believe it'll happen.
More of the same, or the potential for something different
Which suggests that they will be very disappointed, no?
Edit:
don’t believe it’ll happen.
In politics it's difficult to get people to support change if they don't believe that it will happen, one of the prerequisite is to convince voters that you are offering change, even if they don't understand what change you are offering.
They will only be disappointment if they have high expectations. As I do not believe they do have high expectations then I don't see the disappointment coming. Hence the somewhat lukewarm response that labour gets. its the tories being awful thats driving the polling not labour being good
Which suggests that they will be very disappointed, no?
Almost certainly. No one apart from a few financiers and company directors has any expectation that the tories will do anything to help them, but almost everyone else expects to be better off under a labour govt. It's why labour have a much tougher time in both govt and opposition than the tories ever do.
Hence the somewhat lukewarm response that labour gets.
I don't call a 21% lead Labour gets over the Tories when voters are asked how would you vote if there was a general election now "lukewarm".
Well it is very obvious that we aren't talking about "the locals" when we are discussing whether voters will be disappointed with the next Labour government.
Unless you believe that the local election results reflects how voters will vote in a general election? Do you really believe that the LibDems will be only 6% behind the Tories?
Edit: Have a look at some "detailed polling" here
https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/
No one apart from a few financiers and company directors has any expectation that the tories will do anything to help them, but almost everyone else expects to be better off under a labour govt. It’s why labour have a much tougher time in both govt and opposition than the tories ever do.
I didn’t realise there was so many financiers & company directors knocking around… I mean, if everyone else expects to better off under Labour, & everyone else must be a fairly big number, then there must be loads of them. Otherwise how come they keep getting elected?
Obviously that’s nonsense but what it does highlight is that ordinary people who have literally nothing to gain from the Tories except less of everything, seem to vote Tory. Why is that? Why do people believe that the Tories are the party of responsible finances, when historically that can be shown to be untrue?
It’s because their PR machine is so good. They’re particularly adept at tapping into National emotion & then preying upon it. That and a largely sympathetic media.
ordinary people who have literally nothing to gain from the Tories except less of everything, seem to vote Tory. Why is that?
I can only assume...
Stop the boats
Keep the Foreigners out
Get rid of EU law
Keep britain british
Etc.
Complete nonsense of course.
I can only assume…
Stop the boats
Keep the Foreigners out
Get rid of EU law
Keep britain britishEtc.
English Nationalism.
Actually, that's a bit unfair. Let's call it British Nationalism. There are, after all, pockets of it in all the home nations.
It’s because their PR machine is so good. They’re particularly adept at tapping into National emotion & then preying upon it. That and a largely sympathetic media.
It's partly that imo and partly that Labour make it easy for them. Labour almost always take a defensive position or even abandon any attempt to defend themselves - the Tory/LibDem attack on Labour's handling of the global credit crisis (which imo was the single most impressive achievement by New Labour) and the subsequent deficit is a good example of this.
Labour all but went along with the false narrative and claimed that they too would commit themselves to deficit reduction/austerity but over the course of two parliament rather than one. It was a gift to the Tories as it basically backed up what they were saying.
Today Starmer carries on with this traditional Labour defensive strategy by claiming that he will exercise the same level of fiscal prudence as the Tories if not more so, thereby giving credence to Tory economic policies.
In contrast the Tories traditionally attack Labour rather than take a defensive position - why would they need to defend themselves when Labour is largely agreeing with their economic strategies?
By constantly attacking Labour, and Labour either making half-arse attempts to defend themselves or capitulating and agreeing with the Tories, the Tories are able to create myths which the electorate have little reason to doubt as Labour invariably fails to offer a compelling alternative narrative.
All this imo helps to explain why the Tories are hugely successful in winning elections. Margaret Thatcher is an exceptionally good example of relentless Tory attacks on Labour economic policies, until Labour eventually capitulated and agreed with her.
People trust the Tories over Labour to run the economy. Labour really need to try harder to not just show the current lot to be shite but also previous governments. Statistics are on Labour's side.
I can only assume…
Stop the boats
Keep the Foreigners out
Get rid of EU law
Keep britain britishEtc.
The idea that the Tories have been in power for most of the time since universal suffrage was first granted because of those reasons is clearly nonsense.
Although the simplistic conclusion that voters are foreign-hating racists obviously provides more comfortable reassurance than self-criticism does.