Forum menu
What does the political landscape look like if neither party offers solutions?
It continues to look as it has for last 40 years. That is what the voters want.
I’m probably making stuff up in my head but I hope eventually – what with things getting financially worse on a personal level (latest rate rises yet to kick in) – this could all back fire for both major parties.
I think that Starmer claiming to be a better Conservative than the Tories could definitely backfire spectacularly.
There was of course a lot of truth in Peter Mandelson's claim that traditional Labour voters had nowhere else to go, no matter how right-wing Labour became, however it wasn't entirely that easy.
Between 1997 and 2010 New Labour lost about 5 million votes. Many people simply didn't bother voting but about a million and a half switched to the LibDems.
And now unlike 1997 the trade unions, which bankroll the party so that it can pay for election campaigns, are at the end of their tether - more and more affiliated trade unions are talking about disaffiliating from the Labour Party.
There is a gathering opinion, shared by many voters, that the three main parties have nothing to offer. Starmer emphasing that he is a better Conservative than the Tories might help the push for the trade unions to help fund a fresh new party, one that actually has something to offer working people.
It continues to look as it has for last 40 years. That is what the voters want.
Jeez do you actually believe this nonsense? What's more likely, that the voters want to be poorer, have shit public services and work in shit jobs for little reward, or that the system is rigged in favour of the interests of the top 1%? The only thing holding back the voters from demanding real change is the consensus between the labour and tory leadership to keep everything as it is so that they don't upset their media and financial industry backers.
It continues to look as it has for last 40 years. That is what the voters want.
The downward trajectory will likely sort that out at some point.
I think that Starmer claiming to be a better Conservative than the Tories could definitely backfire spectacularly.
I ****ing hope so or we won't see change in our lifetimes.
The only thing holding back the voters from demanding real change is the consensus between the labour and tory leadership to keep everything as it is so that they don’t upset their media and financial industry backers.
Yeah this - and they're not actually being offered better. The UK is country of put up or shut up (unless its Brexit then we're all scowling maniacs) Alastair Campbell was shameful recently in his Brexit debate with Victoria Derbyshire (and the other lady?) - how to look like an oaf.
Double post
nickc
Full Member^ fantasy
More reality than fantasy. One trade union has already disaffiliated from the Labour Party because of Starmer's leadership, and other trade unions such as Unite are closer than they have ever been before.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/unite-could-break-historic-link-26438884#amp-readmore-target
Unite has around 1.3m members and is the UK's most powerful trade union.
News of the deepening split comes after it emerged the train drivers' union ASLEF will debate a motion to disaffiliate at its conference in May. Bakers' union BFAWU cut ties with Labour last September.
That was a year ago and ASLEF didn't vote to disaffiliate but that was before Starmer claimed that he was a more flag-shagging conservative than the Tories are, and he had spent a further year failing to support working people in their dispute with a Tory government.
The RMT disaffiliated from the Labour Party during the Tony Blair years. It is the belief that the trade unions will always bankroll the Labour Party, no matter how Tory they become, which is fantasy.
As is the claim that anti-Tory voters will never have anywhere else to go. Despite the massive collapse of public support for the Tories the Labour Party's performance was less than stunning in the local elections 10 days ago. In contrast the Green Party had its best ever result winning majority control of its first council and ending up the largest party in two further councils.
Neither is the fact of widespread voter dissatisfaction with the three main parties a fantasy. It is precisely that sort of denial which opens the door for parties such as Reform UK.
There is a crying need in UK politics for a party which offers a real alternative to the three main neoliberal parties. And Starmer is significantly helping to make that point.
Edit: Just to be clear....... this is not 1997
I bet he's gutted about the Arsenal result yesterday
There is a crying need in UK politics for a party which offers a real alternative to the three main neoliberal parties..
Most likely way that will happen is Lab/Lib coalition > PR ref > elections under PR > party realignment as per most Euro countries, with far right, centre right, centre left, green, long way left (the new party I'm guessing you want).
And then continue as per other euro countries with coalition govts into the future. I'd like this, and I'd probably vote for the leftiest. But assume we'd not get anything terribly different to France, say.
You may say I'm a dreamer...
And Starmer is significantly helping to make that point
If he did, the above would be less likely to happen
Everything wrong with Starmer in a clip.
https://twitter.com/jrc1921/status/1658027700391485440?s=20
And no - before anyone jumps in (Kelvin) I'm not expecting him to get tehnical with government finances and explain MMT to a nation - but he could say - "We're on our knees as country - we need to build a robust infrastructure and fix the problems created by the Tories - we have the capacity to do that. History demonstrates that well targeted Government investment in times of crisis such as the Pandeminc - World War II. We can't afford to not do it - otherwise there will be no economic growth and things will deteriorate even more. "
Or something better.
Jeez do you actually believe this nonsense? What’s more likely, that the voters want to be poorer, have shit public services and work in shit jobs for little reward, or that the system is rigged in favour of the interests of the top 1%? The only thing holding back the voters from demanding real change is the consensus between the labour and tory leadership to keep everything as it is so that they don’t upset their media and financial industry backers.
Jeez do you actually believe this nonsense?
The voters could simple vote Green if they really want what you have said and there is nothing stopping them doing that. I voted Green the other week and now have a Green councilor and didn't notice a Labour/Conservative consensus at the door not letting me into vote...
Everything wrong with Starmer in a clip.
Depressing. I see what's he's trying to do, he's trying to do what Cameron and Osborne did when they blamed the previous labour govt for not being able to deliver the investment they weren't willing to provide. Trouble is that's not going to work for the simple reason that voters expect the tories to cut, and labour to spend. The country is desperate to break out of the current downward spiral of collapsing public services and ever increasing cost of living and they're looking to labour to do it, and Starmer's answer is 'don't expect us to fix it, we can't!'.
Double post again!
The voters could simple vote Green if they really want what you have said and there is nothing stopping them doing that.
Yeah there are couple of things that might stop them - first-past-the-post for starters, the support the Greens enjoy in local elections isn't reflected in Westminster elections because of it.
And secondly the Green Party is not a direct alternative to the party which Labour was founded to be, it does not campaign and serve the interests of working people in the way the Labour Party was created to do.
Britain needs a party which serves the interests of working people far beyond issues concerning the environment.
Whilst the Green Party has always had a social democratic agenda it really doesn't fill the role that I have suggested. You will struggle to see Green Party banners in demos concerning working people's wages, conditions, and rights, because the connection simply doesn't exist.
I agree in the value of voting Green though, and it is what I did the last time I voted, but it is not the long-term solution. Although a red-green electoral alliance would definitely be a step in the right direction, imo.
binners
Full Member
I bet he’s gutted about the Arsenal result yesterday
I heard he set fire to a wheelie bin, punched a nun in the face, and got a bit tasty with the TSG outside Highbury & Islington tube.
I'm sure some unions are dissatisfied with the Labour parliamentary party, it was ever so, right from the beginnings of the party's creation. The bit I though was a fantasy was
might help the push for the trade unions to help fund a fresh new party
According to the hate press he is going to give votes to foreigners so that we can rejoin the EU.
In my ****ing dreams.
The bit I though was a fantasy was
might help the push for the trade unions to help fund a fresh new party
Well if further trade unions disaffiliate from Labour they will still maintain their political fund, where do think the money will be spent?
The idea that no trade union would ever give financial support to any candidate other than a Labour Party candidate sounds like fantasy to me, or right-wing wishful thinking, especially if a trade union member is allowed to stand as a candidate.
There is no evidence that trade unions want to distance themselves from legislative bodies, in fact the complete opposite.
Obviously we are not at that point yet but Starmer's suggestion that he is a more a committed conservative than the Tories is certainly a step in that direction, which was my point.
What happens under a Starmer premiership is something else which could have a profound affect on how things develop. New Labour on "steroids"? It was under New Labour that the RMT disaffiliated.
Btw if I had told a week ago that there would be a headline like this I suspect that you would have dismissed it as "fantasy"
Labour are the real conservatives, says Keir Starmer as he promises to protect ‘our way of life’
"Btw if I had told a week ago that there would be a headline like this I suspect that you would have dismissed it as “fantasy”
Labour are the real conservatives, says Keir Starmer as he promises to protect ‘our way of life’"
Nope. A couple of days ago I posted on this thread that the Tories have morphed into a nationalist party and are no longer conservative, leaving a vacuum in the electoral landscape.
Starmer's words indicate that he has seen said vacuum and has decided to move into that space. You may not like it but it's hardly surprising.
Maybe he's decided that an appeal to moderates will be more fruitful than getting on his knees and begging all those Brexity former Labour voters to come back.
Those traditional Labour voters who rejected Corbyns progressive policies twice by voting for the Tories and other, even more right wing parties?
Going by recent voting patterns, there's probably more chance of regaining the traditional working class Northern vote by becoming more conservative.
Just saying...
Going by recent voting patterns, there’s probably more chance of regaining the traditional working class Northern vote by becoming more conservative.
I would like to bet that Northern working class voters would like to see some cash spent on their decimated towns and industries; then they might not end up in the position of blaming other things for their hardship and voting for the likes of Brexit in the first place.
Conservatism is totally counter to working class needs. They're being sold a red herring. Economic Conservatism will simply wreck the economy even more.
Reminds me of this:
"If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain"
Well evidence shows its clearly the older generation that clearly appear to have no brains.
And secondly the Green Party is not a direct alternative to the party which Labour was founded to be, it does not campaign and serve the interests of working people in the way the Labour Party was created to do.
Britain needs a party which serves the interests of working people far beyond issues concerning the environment.
Okay, so you haven't read their manifesto. You don't see UBI, increasing minimum wage, improving public services / schooling / NHS as serving the interests of working people?
To discount them because of their environmental aspect is pretty ignorant.
I’m sure some unions are dissatisfied with the Labour parliamentary party, it was ever so
Yes, true. Quite possible that some TUs will disaffiliate from the Labour Party officially, but instead will find individual MPs, MSPs etc and councillors on a case by case basis. This would short term probably be to TU advantage but long term would probably undermine the very concept of political parties, as candidates start chasing endorsements from increasingly exotic lobbies, US style. I don't know, maybe that's what people want know.
Okay, so you haven’t read their manifesto. You don’t see UBI, increasing minimum wage, improving public services / schooling / NHS as serving the interests of working people?
To discount them because of their environmental aspect is pretty ignorant.
Me saying:
"I agree in the value of voting Green though, and it is what I did the last time I voted"
is hardly an example of 'discounting' the Green Party.
And yes of course I have read their manifesto, why else would I be supporting them? I have twice said recently on here that the Green Party has always had social-democratic manifestos.
However I don't see the Green Party as a long term solution. For a start despite strongly supporting social-democratic parties I am definitely not a social democrat. I simply see social-democracy as a necessary and vital transitional phase on the journey towards a more advanced society. But it certainly doesn't signal the end of history or the pinnacle of human achievement or a solution to all of society's problems. Dream on if you think it does. That is precisely why the postwar consensus collapsed.
Anyway the other limitation that the Green Party has is that, like the Liberal Democrats under Charles Kennedy (which I also supported) is that it has a lack of connection with organised working people, which was a founding principle of the Labour Party.
Before the Labour Party was founded the trade unions were backing Liberal Party politicians. They realised the limitations that created so instead of having a political party which alledgedly represented their interests they decided to form their own political party.
That might have been a hundred years ago but Britian still needs a political party which connects directly with ordinary working people. I don't believe in democracy by proxy - working people need to represent themselves (obviously not as individuals!)
Social-democratic parties like the Greens and the LibDems under Charles Kennedy do a good job at highlighting that there is an alternative to the Tory-Labour neoliberal agenda but it needs more than that. When was the last time that you attended a trade union demo/event where you see a Green Party or LibDem banner? They do exist but they are far and few between.
"Conservatism is totally counter to working class needs. They’re being sold a red herring. Economic Conservatism will simply wreck the economy even more."
Couldn't agree more though it does remind me of this:
'You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink"...
Going by recent voting patterns, there’s probably more chance of regaining the traditional working class Northern vote by becoming more conservative.
Going by recent voting patterns it is rather stupid to assume you will retain the core voters whilst chasing after a different group.
If he wants to be tory good for him. Personally I would have preferred for him to join the tories and steer that back to being a proper tory party rather than hijacking labour but hey ho.
Now what are the lib dems and greens offering?
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink”
Eventually it will need a drink of water though or it will die.
🙂
"Going by recent voting patterns it is rather stupid to assume you will retain the core voters whilst chasing after a different group."
Thanks for implying I'm stupid but in case you hadn't noticed, those 'core' voters I'm reffering to fled the nest some time ago.
But if New New Labour turn you off, by all means take a look at the Lib Dems or the Greens. How your switch of vote would play out would depend entirely on where you live of course...
Going by recent voting patterns it is rather stupid to assume you will retain the core voters whilst chasing after a different group.
Thanks for implying I’m stupid
How is describing Starmer's strategy, which you apparently support, as stupid, the same as implying that you are stupid? Only stupid people do stupid things?
Btw your attitude appears to be if you don't like the direction that Starmer has taken the Labour Party then vote for another party. That is hardly an acceptable attitude on two counts.
Firstly the Labour Party is not Starmer's personal property, it wasn't created to satisfy his whims. And secondly he has absolutely no mandate to turn the Labour Party into a new improved Conservative Party - he was elected party leader on a clear radical socialist platform and on the basis of "my pledge to you".
Which is precisely why he is so busy with his purges as he tries to to silence all dissent within the party with explosions, candidate blocking, and threats against Labour members, instead of treating the Tories as the real enemy.
Well it is only one opinion poll but it is the first one in which the fieldwork was carried out after the news broke that "Labour are the real conservatives", according to Sir Keir Starmer.
https://twitter.com/DeltapollUK/status/1658151432082653185
The 2% drop in support for Labour suggests that Starmer needs to do more to energise voters than to claim that he is a better conservative than the Tories.
It seems that he might have helped the LibDems more than Labour.
The 2% drop in support for Labour suggests that Starmer needs to do more to energise voters than to claim that he is a better conservative than the Tories.
Fortunately for Starmer the tory right wing are having a conference where they're doing a passable impression of the Nazis and are even standing in front of a lectern with the phrase 'National Conservatives' on it. He really is the luckiest politician alive.
And Starmer is trying to persuade past Conservative voters to jump ship from this Nationalist Conservative bandwagon, which is why he's doing all this "the Conservative party is no longer made up of conservatives" stuff... pointing out to older voters what the current party of government have become (the "hungry pythons" Major warned about) and trying to persuade them that it's now safe (from their position) to vote Labour.
Actually the writing was on the wall when Starmeroid kept giving the Tories his support to make a mess of Covid.
Well, I for one am glad that Starmer didn't go down the path of helping block the public health measures needed. Leaving the government to squirm as its more libertarian back benchers blocked things would probably have resulted in a very high price being paid by many more members of the public. But that's all for another thread.
"He really is the luckiest politician alive."
Or he made a good judgment call. Perhaps he (or his staff) were aware that the NatC conference was about to take place and that the Tories were about to goose step towards the far right.
If he made that comment today critics would say he's just reacting to events. Neutral observers (and voters) might say that he was right.
'You make your own luck', as they say...
So the apparent previous STW consensus that British voters easily buy into right-wing racist bollocks has now changed - when did that happen?
Now it turns out that the likes of Braverman and the National Conservatism Conference will actually put people off voting Tory.
I actually agree but when I challenged the claim that voters were motivated by selfish greed and unbridled racism I was told by a Guardian-reading expert on the matter that I needed to pay a visit to the Rose and Crown in Ramsbottom to find out what real voters think.
On this very thread.
Oi Starmer ,I'm here. I've never voted labour in my life.
My vote is yours ,just say some nice stuff about Europe and don't be a ****.
I will no doubt vote lib dem.
rather than hijacking labour
The parliamentary party (and for that matter the national party) has always been an internal struggle between factions, the very first meeting of what became the modern Labour party was this very same argument. There has never been a point in it's history where that has been settled either way. The claim to "hijack" Labour has been made continually by many, and will do so again in the future. To be a supporter of Labour is to acknowledge that.
there’s probably more chance of regaining the traditional working class Northern vote by becoming more conservative.
There's always been a element of working class support for; The military, strong patriotism , a limit to immigration, and firm policing. These are all, by any measure; socially conservative, and have been successful campaign points for Labour in the past. These are in contrast to policies that they regard as too elitist, i.e. support for more immigration, the rejection of nationalism, and patriotism, that were promoted and supported by the previous leadership and it can be argued that Starmer is more popular because he is happy to speak about them, and that is finding support in areas that voted Tory in 2019.
So the reason last October that more than 50% of the electorate were saying they would Labour in a general election, compared to the 25% who said they would vote Tory, is simply because Starmer was so massively popular?
Are we assuming that it had nothing to do with the British cheese-eating patriot Liz Truss?
The greatest area of support for Labour last October were the so-called red wall seats. At one point Labour had a 38% lead over the Tories in the 'red wall' seats :
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-red-wall-voting-intention-3-4-october-2022/
Labour 61% (+12)
Conservative 23% (-11)
Reform UK 3% (-4)
Liberal Democrat 7% (+2)
Green 4% (–)
Plaid Cymru 1% (+1)
Other 1% (–)
Do you think that was because Keir Starmer was seen as massively more conservative and patriotic than Liz Truss?
Labour's popularity has bugger all to do with Starmer and everything to do a total lack of popular support for Conservative government policies.
Starmer knows that which is why he says so little about what he would do as PM and chooses instead to sit back and watch the Tories implode.
So the reason last October that more than 50% of the electorate were saying they would Labour in a general election, compared to the 25% who said they would vote Tory, is simply because Starmer was so massively popular?
Who said that? Or are you making up things to argue against again?
Well if no one said it I can't see a problem. I am glad you agree that Labour's popularity has little to do with Starmer and a lot to do with the Tories's lack of popularity.
Thanks for the thumbs up 👍
I didn't say that. Carry on as you were.
Tbh you haven't said anything really. Just attempted to express disagreement with me without attempting to provide a counterargument, as usual.
Sorry for butting in on your conversation with yourself. Carry on.
Carry on as you were.
Carry on.
Really is that all you can manage?
You come out with some nonsense that I suggested someone said something or other and you can't back it up with anything so you come out with churlish comments like that?
I simply pointed out that conservativism and patriotism isn't the massive vote winner which some seem to think, and that actual policies are more important.
Liz Truss's disastrous 49 day premiership is an excellent example of that, I think most people would agree.
Obviously you don't because, well you wouldn't would you?
Edit: And just to be clear - I didn't claim that anyone had said anything, that is just something which you have made up. Ironically.
You come out with some nonsense that I suggested someone said something or other and you can’t back it up with anything so you come out with churlish comments like that?
What's the point? Really? You'll just make something else up. Put words in my mouth for me. I'm not biting, sorry.
"Starmer knows that which is why he says so little about what he would do as PM and chooses instead to sit back and watch the Tories implode."
If your opposition is imploding then why wouldn't you sit back and get the good biscuits out?
"candidate blocking, and threats against Labour members, instead of treating the Tories as the real enemy."
The thing is ernie, Starmer isn't treating Tory voters, (traditional or recent) as the enemy, maybe that's what irks you.
What’s the point? Really? You’ll just make something else up. I’m not biting, sorry.
No need to apologise just try to stick to that rather excellent attitude.
There is no need to respond by telling me that you are not going to respond!
The thing is ernie, Starmer isn’t treating Tory voters, (traditional or recent) as the enemy, maybe that’s what irks you.
The hatred expressed on STW towards Tory voters, traditional and recent, is almost palpable. Apparently, according to many on here, Tory voters are all stupid thick racists. I have been regularly castigated for suggesting otherwise.
It often makes having a sensible debate on political threads rather difficult.
People are desperate - they cut Starmer all the slack he needs to do anything he wants, and lose the ability to be critical in the process.
Constant excuses since day one for his pathetic switcheroos, pledge-breaking and general word salad bollocks.
No one knows what he's really about as he's happy to go full Tory when it suits and that is somehow a good thing now.
Depressing as hell.
Well, I for one am glad that Starmer didn’t go down the path of helping block the public health measures needed.
Lol no one said block anything.
But at the time he never offered solid criticism of the way things were panning out, or suggested better ways of doing things.
Still, wall paper.
People are desperate – they cut Starmer all the slack he needs to do anything he wants, and lose the ability to be critical in the process.
Quite. Cutting him that slack would require being sufficiently open minded to the point that my brains would fall out.
The hatred expressed on STW towards Tory voters, traditional and recent, is almost palpable. Apparently, according to many on here, Tory voters are all stupid thick racists. I have been regularly castigated for suggesting otherwise.
It often makes having a sensible debate on political threads rather difficult.
Schrödinger's Centrists.
You've got to both hate the Tories until your blood explodes and spend the last seven years castigating every possible Tory quality ... or now it's a good thing that Starmer has inherited some of those same *finer* Tory qualities to be the new sensible right-wing Cameron budget spin-off.
Oh my life.
What happened to selling solid Tory dismantling progressive ideas for your electorate to vote for?
The hatred expressed on STW towards Tory voters, traditional and recent, is almost palpable.
That's because on here politics is nothing more than a sport. Go to the football thread and you'll see the exact same sentiments being expressed about how spurs are shit and will never win, Newcastle are evil billionaire-funded devils and Man U the once unbeatable kings who have lost all ambition. The parallels are quite stark.
No one knows what he’s really about as he’s happy to go full Tory when it suits and that is somehow a good thing now.
Polly Toybee appears to think he's a radical. 😂
No one knows what he’s really about
This is what I find quite strange. Some people seem to fully accept that Starmer was lying through his teeth when he was desperate to win the Labour leadership election, with his 10 socialist pledges etc, but often the same people seem bizarrely confident that he is now being honest with regards to what he says he would do as prime minister.
No one who thinks it is acceptable to lie simply to win one election is going to think it is quite unacceptable to lie to win another election.
The idea that Starmer would be comfortable lying to members of his own party but not to voters isn't plausible imo.
No one, and I of course include myself, can be certain what policies Starmer would pursue as prime minister. I very much doubt that he has any commitment to any idealogy, what seems to motivate him most is his apparent commitment to himself.
It baffles me what the people who back Starmer think they are actually backing.
On the plus side the 'hatred' towards Tory voters seems to be balanced by a similar sentiment towards the 'centralists' 😂
hate the Tories until your blood explodes and spend the last seven years castigating every possible Tory quality … or now it’s a good thing that Starmer has inherited some of those same *finer* Tory qualities
Yeah its strange how the people who express the most intense hatred towards the Tories on here are often also the same people who want the Labour Party to be a bit more like the Tories.
This thread, for quite some time, has been the internet equivalent of those blokes you see in the park drinking white lightning and shouting at buses 😂
Polly Toybee appears to think he’s a radical. 😂
PMSL - she's delusional.
I will read that and try and keep a straight face.
I will read that and try and keep a straight face.
Don't bother, here it is below. Radical stuff I'm sure you'll agree. Surestart centres, colleges, museums and playing fields! Vive la revolution!
"Momentum’s remnants grumble that he offers no more than “New Labour re-runs”, but they should hope he can cut child and pensioner poverty by a million people; revive benefits, Sure Start programmes for tots and further education colleges; and renew local museums and grassroots sport to outdo New Labour’s 13 abundant years from 1997 to 2010. It will be harder this time."
binners Full Member
This thread, for quite some time, has....blah, blah, blah,
I always knew that despite your self-imposed silence you kept a close eye on this thread binners, which is why I sometimes post something especially for you 😉
Any thoughts on my earlier comment which you have undoubtedly read?
I'm sure that you didn't miss it but here it is again anyway:
So the apparent previous STW consensus that British voters easily buy into right-wing racist bollocks has now changed – when did that happen?
Now it turns out that the likes of Braverman and the National Conservatism Conference will actually put people off voting Tory.
I actually agree but when I challenged the claim that voters were motivated by selfish greed and unbridled racism I was told by a Guardian-reading expert on the matter that I needed to pay a visit to the Rose and Crown in Ramsbottom to find out what real voters think.
This thread, for quite some time, has been the internet equivalent of those blokes you see in the park drinking white lightning and shouting at buses 😂
Ah I always wondered where you got your political analysis from.
Don’t bother, here it is below. Radical stuff I’m sure you’ll agree. Surestart centres, colleges, museums and playing fields! Vive la revolution
Wow, party like it's 1997.
Wasn't sure where best to post this but if its been done apologies.
https://twitter.com/TheNewsAgents/status/1658195544496562177?t=xoSnovVAyrGT6ufZ9tK6Pw&s=19
"Camden comrades, North London Leninists, and tofu-eating Trotskyists"?
Binners wrote the script!!
Radical stuff I’m sure you’ll agree. Surestart centres, colleges, museums and playing fields! Vive la revolution!
You can shit on boring Surestart centres all you like, and pine for a government that won't stop until it liberates Al Quds, but one of these paths leads to a material improvement in the quality of real people's lives and the other leads to smug blog pieces on Squawkbox about how you ultimately won the argument.
You can shit on boring Surestart centres all you like, and pine for a government that won’t stop until it liberates Al Quds, but one of these paths leads to a material improvement in the quality of real people’s lives and the other leads to smug blog pieces on Squawkbox about how you ultimately won the argument.
Toynbee did everything she could in her contorting little column to ensure we didn't get radical.
She's not a serious commentator.
Starmer is not offering the path you talk about anyway. Why are so Centrists so comfortable with the move rightwards which won't deliver meaningful improvement?
Baffling.
You can shit on boring Surestart centres all you like
No one is shitting on surestart centres, they're a great thing of value. However, for a government which spends over a trillion pounds annually, has the ability to spend more at will, and the luxury of being able to set law and policy to get the best value from that spending, does it not occur to you that it should be doing an awful lot more than creating surestart centres and running museums? FFS think bigger!
So the apparent previous STW consensus that British voters easily buy into right-wing racist bollocks has now changed – when did that happen?
Can't talk about the consensus but it hasn't change for me, I still believe that. I know you love to talk about Brexit but that was a lot of people who bought into racist bollocks was it not. Strong evidence right there.
How many of those same people will be happy with "stopping the boats". A fair majority I would guess.
I know you love to talk about Brexit
Pretty sure Ernie avoids talking about brexit at all costs. 🤷♂️
but that was a lot of people who bought into racist bollocks was it not
No, it wasn't, as hundreds of posts by myself and others on both brexit threads pointed out. Maybe go back and have a read rather than repeating cliched stereotypes?
How many of those same people will be happy with “stopping the boats”.
Did you even read Ernie's post? He was pointing out that the success of Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens in the local elections and the continuing unpopularity of the tories in the polls shows that voters don't really care about stopping the boats and instead prioritise other issues like the cost of living, the NHS, the environment and other stuff like energy policy, tuition fees and schools funding. There is very little evidence that stopping the boats is a high priority for the general population.
You can shit on boring Surestart centres all you like
The problem with them and the other items is they were rapidly rolled back.
So we had them for a period but then we had the normalisation of most of the tory policies.
With this as the new baseline surestart etc vanished into thin air whilst they doubled down on policies that even Thatcher thought were a bit too extreme.
Being radical is about getting your policies to stick not so they can be binned.
Given Starmers current line he seems determined to repeat the same mistake.
Being radical is about getting your policies to stick not so they can be binned.
The minimum wage being a good example.
Getting any policy to stick if you lose yet another general election is a tough ask though.
Did you even read Ernie’s post? He was pointing out that the success of Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens in the local elections and the continuing unpopularity of the tories in the polls shows that voters don’t really care about stopping the boats and instead prioritise other issues like the cost of living, the NHS, the environment and other stuff like energy policy, tuition fees and schools funding
Yep, I just disagree with his thoughts on it. And that is all they are, thoughts - just the same as mine. He is no more correct on anything that I am, we are both just basically making stuff up although he clearly spends A LOT more time on it.
Just to entertain it though and let's pretend Ernie is correct - which policies did the Lib Dems present to the people who want to prioritise cost of living, the NHS etc,. that attracted them?
Or are people just fed up with tory shit after 12 years, which is much more likely the case (just my thoughts)
The minimum wage being a good example.
True although that was mostly down to the fact all the economists were proved to be wrong. If it hadnt been obviously beneficial it would have been binned off like everything else (most likely by the effective method of lack of enforcement and not increasing it).
Getting any policy to stick if you lose yet another general election is a tough ask though.
Not necessarily. It depends on whether the party in charge has to respond to you or not. The classic case being UKIP although that was largely dependent on sympathetic wing of the other parties.
Which is of course the other problem with the being slightly less tory than the tories. You end up with a bunch of people not feeling represented and going looking for someone else to vote for.
Minimum wage was set so low in real terms as to be basically insignificant.
I just think the general issue with radical policies (and most of them aren't that radical if you want things to be better) - is that politicians just don't have the backbone to take them to the establishment and fight.
When you have a BoE that can effectively operate at odds to government policy QE/QT versus the direction of interest rates being a good example - then you're simply going to back down 9/10 as things are too entrenched in a market system.
Is it good for the market - "no", then fine homeless people don't factor in to that question.
Starmer is simply never going anywhere close because of this.
There is nothing particularly radical and progressive about a legal minimum wage, right-wing governments are often happy to have a legal minimum wage.
Even the United States which isn't always considered a highly progressive country with regards to social provisions has a federal minimum wage.
A legal minimum wage has a fair few advantages for right-wing governments including reducing government spending on in-work benefits and also reducing the likelihood of workers joining trade unions.
A legal minimum wage isn't necessary in a society where the balance of power is not heavily in favour of private employers.
There is nothing particularly radical and progressive about a legal minimum wage
There isn't now. There was in the UK in 1997. That it's now embedded and entirely accepted by near complete consensus here now was the point of the example of "getting your policies to stick".
I say "near", because increasingly "employers" can avoid it, and Conservative governments have quietly let that happen both legally and illegally on a larger and larger scale.
Starmer going full swivel-eyed trickle down economics. Won't be long before he's got Liz Truss on his team of advisors. It beggars belief. 🙄
"I know what a lot of people in Westminster say about growth. They say it’s an abstract concept, doesn’t resonate, doesn’t connect with peoples’ lives, I don’t accept that.
Growth is higher wages. Growth is stronger communities. Growth is thriving businesses. It’s more vibrant high street, less poverty, more opportunity, warmer homes, healthier food, better jobs.
It’s public services that are well funded. It’s holidays, meals out, more cash in your pocket - an end to the suffocating cost of living crisis, our ticket to win the race for the future and the biggest single thing we need to lift our sights, raise our ambitions, and get our hope, our confidence and our future back."
Starmer on Radio4 PM now. Getting the new (cancelled) rail infrastructure in the North back on the agenda.
There is nothing particularly radical and progressive about a legal minimum wage
There isn’t now. There was in the UK in 1997.
The UK introduced a legal minimum wage 59 years after the United States.