Forum menu
That's not the UK. Is it. So isn't counter to my point at it. Is it.
Interesting fact, IIRC, it was comparative studies of USA state minimum wages that Labour used to justify the economics of their minimum wage policy when the likes of Minford were claiming it would create unemployment.
Anyway, I'm wasting my time here. If it wasn't for you we might be able to have a discussion here, rather than whatever is you want to.
we might be able to have a discussion here
It is obvious that you don't really want a discussion. Just a noncritical appraisal of Sir Keir Starmer.
make it so
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/18/labour-scottish-style-right-to-roam-law-england
There won't be any green spaces once that stupid **** has built on it.
Minimum wage was set so low as to not upset big businesses - which at the time they thought their world was going to cave in because of it. Which was bullshit.
Typical tinkering at the edges.
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
Current status on that is the UK is stalling and I see nothing from anyone that will reverse that.
Building an economy out of House price inflation and then lifting interest rates is like giving you a fast car to drive off a cliff.
There won’t be any green spaces once that stupid **** has built on it.
You mean this?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-65619675
He's backing the builders not the blockers.
Edit: Ironically I believe that it was a Labour government which first introduced nationwide legislation in 1947 to stop developments on the greenbelt. Mind you back then the Labour Party weren't real conservatives.
It's a sad day when a Tory is less of a **** than the Labour leader.
Yep, screw the young amd minimum waged. Let them enrich the landlords for the whole of their lives.
Bill, stop foreign investment buyers and the prices will come down. There is no reason that any new houses can't be sold at cost. They won't be because building is all about profit for builders.
The affordable housing they want to build on our green belt costs £500k.
True although that was mostly down to the fact all the economists were proved to be wrong.
This is total rubbish. It is simply not the case that "all the economists" opposed the minimum wage.
Minimum wage was set so low as to not upset big businesses
This is rubbish too. I was a kid making minimum wage at the time, and it radically increased the hourly rate I was paid. The fact that the economy as a whole was growing and the government had a mandate and majority meant that corporate opposition was overcome.
I was a kid making minimum wage at the time, and it radically increased the hourly rate I was paid.
Yeah great for a kid living at home but not enough for an independent adult. Which presumably is why the Tories had to introduce the National Living Wage 17 years later and leave the National Living Wage for kids.
Obviously that ^^ should read "National Minimum Wage for kids"
This is rubbish too. I was a kid making minimum wage at the time, and it radically increased the hourly rate I was paid. The fact that the economy as a whole was growing and the government had a mandate and majority meant that corporate opposition was overcome
Just because it 'radically' increased your wage doesn't make it not low. It simply means you were being paid too low before that.
The minimum wage was accepted because it was insignificant. It's an absolute matter of economics.
For a start they didn't even get to their own level they set. It fell short.
The full rate was £3.60 an hour in 1999 Which would have meant 7488 per year. Average house price was 75,000. On what planet do you think those wages are radical?
Average (medion) earnings though were about 18,800. So the minimum wage was not doing a thing really, and certainly not significant enough to live on.
UK is and was low wage country for millions despite minimum wage.
https://twitter.com/StevenGWalker74/status/1659433996013518850?t=wiBZrkkxBFws78rlOgku0g&s=19
Doh. This is a ridiculous approach, it will just move more people to work in the private sector from exactly the same pool of labour and drive up health inequality.
What is wrong with these bone-headed Labour morons? Are we all brainwashed into the failure of private market services which must be solved by even more market involvement?
Government can pay or you can pay. It's a gaping hole waiting to be solved by the power of the state. An easy sell for the Labour Party.
(And if this was a short term fix - fine but they will chuck loads of money at the private sector and hail it a success. )
You need to look at the cost per operation (private vs NHS). I see all the costs for Private as I see the bills (but fortunately don't have to pay them).
Is the same operation on NHS the same price as Private or is it more or less? Do they even know, have they actually costed it at that level (i.e room time, anaesthetist time, surgeon time, bed and after care time in hospital etc,.)
You need to look at the cost per operation (private vs NHS). I see all the costs for Private as I see the bills (but fortunately don’t have to pay them).
Is the same operation on NHS the same price as Private or is it more or less? Do they even know, have they actually costed it at that level (i.e room time, anaesthetist time, surgeon time, bed and after care time in hospital etc,.)
My point would be the private sector is taking resources and labour that could be available to the NHS in the first place.
And the government can always pay.
So why bother?
Get rid of it and it becomes public control - that redeploys resources back to where they're needed. Long term.
Is the same operation on NHS the same price as Private or is it more or less? Do they even know, have they actually costed it at that level (i.e room time, anaesthetist time, surgeon time, bed and after care time in hospital etc,.)
The apparent costs of ops in the private sector do not include all the underpinnings: costs of training the docs and nurses, costs of having emergency backup from the NHS for when procedures get complex as can happen etc.
Besides this, the last time private sector capacity was used to bring down waiting times, at a time of literal doubling of health budgets (evil new labour) the actual contribution to bringing down waiting was pretty marginal. Not that terrible at the time as more money was going into the NHS than it could use efficiently. But times have changed. (I like Streeting but this is a bad policy. And does make you wonder if he actually believes what - openly declared, obv - venture capital donors to his office tell him.)
In his speech, the opposition leader is set to tell the public that it is “not serious” to suggest that the NHS’s current issues can be fixed solely with more money.
Nowhere in the article can I see what non-budgetary "fundamentals" he intends to fix other than this:
He said the UK had fallen from fourth to 10th in the international ranks for the number of cutting-edge experiments taking place, a drop that Labour calculates amounts to £450m in lost revenue.
Is that it - more cutting-edge experiments are needed? It can't surely be down to just simply more clinical trials. How about he explains these fundamentals that need fixing in more detail?
And I don't get this
"he will outline his vision for modernising the NHS"
How is the NHS an old-fashioned institute which needs modernising? Every few years, for the last 40 years, the NHS undergoes huge massive seismic structural changes. Whatever its current structures they are likely to reflect what has been implemented in very recent years.
https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1660538956050583552?s=20
Bullshit - back to front.
The economy can't grow without massive spending. The money has to come from somewhere in the first place.
No need for this total lie.
: "The money you need for the NHS will only realistically come if we're able to grow the economy"
He needs to explain how the NHS was created at huge costs to the government in 1947 when the country was so totally screwed by WW2 that rationing was still in place.
He needs to explain how the NHS was created at huge costs to the government in 1947 when the country was so totally screwed by WW2 that rationing was still in place.
For sure - and we're on fiat now. So it's technically just a choice.
And what's more you fix the NHS - you create growth in the private sector - it follows.
The money comes from government - not the economy.
For a motoring analogy it's like claiming you car makes the petrol it needs to fuel itself. This is how stupid it is.
General question about politics and state power.
Why is the state enriching its own society to do good things - not seen as patriotic? Is this a Thatcher/Reagan thing?
When did we go from having this massive power/funds to do the big things (and all the evidence that is the case) - that private enterprise was the truly patriotic - non-commie solution?
Was it Financialisation back in the 80s? Because that's a bunch of bullshit too.
Conservative party shop are now selling Keir Starmer “flip flops”
It would be more useful to print merchandise with their own current leader on, to remind the public who it is. Might be a risk holding stock though. Perhaps make them plain with removable stickers for whoever is the incumbent this week. As for policies... which of theirs have lasted through the mess of the last few years? New funding model for social care? 40 new hospitals? Distributed nuclear power? Anything...?
I generally won't chat to anyone wearing those sort of flip-flops anyway. Sorted.
I am a huge fan of flip-flops, although not of political flip-floppers.
I think it is safe to assume that a major attack line that will be used against Starmer in the next general election campaign is his staggering level of inconsistency.
It will be incredibly easy for the Tories as Starmer is so brazen when he publicly contradicts his previous positions.
Voters will have no realistic chance of knowing exactly what policies Starmer will pursue as prime minister. I think it is reasonable to assume that any "pledges" he makes will be seen as worthless.
If the Conservatives (whoever is running things at the time) want to make the election about consistency and delivering on policies and promises... BRING IT ON!
I think it all hinges on the economy currently.
We're teetering - but signals are super confusing.
Still people with money etc, but I'd imagine those with mortgage fixes coming to an end soon - could be in trouble.
There is basically no growth whichever way you cut it but a technical recession is doing its very best to stay away.
BRING IT ON!
Now there's fighting talk.
However it won't be just the Tories who will be exploiting Starmer's famous policy flip-flopping, it provides an open goal for any opponent:
https://www.snp.org/starmer-rightward-shift/
I agree with all of that Rone.
I don’t see there being much movement of SNP voters to Labour Ernie, and nor do I care if that’s not the case, or even if the SNP increase their vote share. The SNP aren’t the problem as far as I’m concerned. Fewer Tory MPs has to be the focus of everything Labour do in the next few years of opposition.
I don’t see there being much movement of SNP voter to Labour
Aren't the polls showing precisely that?
Even if there isn't a movement from SNP to Labour it is quite irrelevant to the fact that parties such as the SNP and the LibDems, and the Greens, as well as the Tories, will be exploiting Starmer's constantly changing positions, as the Tory flip-flop sandals suggest.
It's an open goal.
I don’t care if the SNP, LibDems and Greens all do well at the next general election. In fact I welcome it.
Let the Tories challenge Labour on having shifted position and policy since the last election, and Starmer’s early statements as leader… it just draws attention to their own mess and constant attempts to restart and reposition their government.
I agree with all of that Rone.
So do I but you have constantly played down the importance of the economy in the way voters vote claiming that pandering to their alledged conservative instincts was the way to go.
A week ago on this very thread you were suggesting that Starmer was right to claim that he is a better conservative than the Tories.
kelvin
Full MemberStarmer’s team seem to have focussed on why people voted against Labour up here, away from the big smoke, with unerring vigour. It’s all superficial nonsense of course, but if it works… and the signs are that it is working… upsetting some of the chattering metropolitan class is a price worth paying.
Posted 1 week ago
you have constantly played down the importance of the economy
Enough of you making up bullshit. Have the thread to yourself you tedious troll.
kelvin
Full Member
I don’t care if the SNP, LibDems and Greens all do well at the next general election. In fact I welcome it.
Presumably that's because you aren't a Labour Party member. People have been kicked out of the Labour Party for saying stuff like that on social media.
And you have to assume that "Starmer's team" do care.
Have the thread to yourself you tedious troll.
Oh we are back to personal insults, when you can't defend your own inconsistencies.
Oh we are back to personal insults, when you can’t defend your own inconsistencies.
I'd accept your victory with good grace.
You've won.
Versus one other poster.
On one of multiple political threads.
On a forum that is, supposedly, predominantly about mountain biking.
On a site that the vast majority of the population have no awareness it actually exists.
It is a towering achievement.
The inconsequentiality of stw is self-evident I would have thought Danny.
^^^^
🤷♂️????
Anyway, I'm out of this.
Too dangerous.
"I am a huge fan of flip-flops, although not of political flip-floppers."
Then it looks like you're exactly the sort of customer the Conservative Party shop has in mind...
However it won’t be just the Tories who will be exploiting Starmer’s famous policy flip-flopping, it provides an open goal for any opponent:
Which is exactly what I said a few weeks ago. He will get ripped apart from opposition and the media (press and social) for the whole six months before an election and put a massive element of doubt into any people thinking about Labour. Yes the tories are clearly worse for most of those people who will be turned away from him but that is how it works and is what we have sene for the last 40 years.
The people and mechanisms that what things to go their way works (see Tory election wins and Brexit). Blair pulled it off and we know how, Starmer is not that and it is not 1997.
As well as change, Blair offered hope and positivity (even if in hindsight we can see the superficiality of those offerings), Starmer isn't offering any of those.
Yep to lots of this.
He's also not put enough difference politically between himself and the Tories, this creates voter apathy - which is exactly what Labour don't need.
(Their potential immigration policy looks like a Ukip job too.)
Why the hell doesn't anyone campaign on proper life changing stuff?
Being totally honest we need the whole current model to collapse as putting faith in Starmer is utterly misplaced and without integrity too.
It's like taking the crumbs after a really good meal as your only option.
Everyone on all sides - so out of ideas and inspiration. The junk I've heard talking about the economy is totally mind blowing.
I mean we're looking at more interest rate rises. So so bone-headed. Desperately trying to force a recession on an economy is irresponsible and simply not necessary. Jeremy Hunt looked like a robot recently when endorsing this approach. Has he been replaced by Ai?
I even heard Norman Lamont recently (ex-chancellor) talking about inflation - and incorrectly explain Q/E. He couldn't have got it so wrong. Like - factually misrepresented the mechanics, which are on the BoE's website (or close enough.)
I've never agreed with Andrew Neil in my life but.
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1662330334342438913?t=JMF9g4Oh1zexpYNQFnRvJw&s=19
Also why are they also so shocked inflation doesn't move quickly whilst raising rates?
Warren Mosler has constantly demonstrated that raising rates adds money to parts of the economy (through interest income) and keeps inflation strong.
It's the exact opposite of what they thought would happen.
Tits.
Tanking the economy to keep Sunak's promise on inflation is mad https://mol.im/a/12129837 via
@MailOnline
And in the Daily Mail too...... what's going on?!?!?
Chancellor Jeremy Hunt says he doesn't mind a recession if it's needed to get inflation down.
As a piece of economic self-harm it doesn't get better (or, more accurately, worse)."
I didn't read much beyond that but as admirers of Margret Thatcher both Neil and the Daily Mail must surely know that it is basic Thatcherism to claim that inflation is the greatest economic evil and dealing with it is the most important priority, even if it causes a recession resulting in over 3 million unemployed.
Thatcher's Chancellor of the Exchequer, Norman Lamount famously declared :
"If higher unemployment is the price we have to pay in order to bring inflation down, then it is a price worth paying"
Obviously it wasn't a price that he paid, by "we" he meant other people.
For the Tories to be today arguing among themselves over such a basic tenet of Thatcherism shows just how ideologically rudderless and confused of how to deal with their own economic failures.
What a great time for Labour to offer an alternative vision.
Jeremy Hunt looked like a robot recently when endorsing this approach. Has he been replaced by Ai?
AI is way better than Jeremy Hunt - you would soon see an improvement if he was replaced with AI.
AI is way better than Jeremy Hunt – you would soon see an improvement if he was replaced with AI
😂
Or they could be evil Ai.
I didn’t read much beyond that but as admirers of Margret Thatcher both Neil and the Daily Mail must surely know that it is basic Thatcherism to claim that inflation is the greatest economic evil and dealing with it is the most important priority, even if it causes a recession resulting in over 3 million unemployed
It's an open admission that the intention is for the lower end of the trough to help with upper end of the trough's inflation.
God-damn if there aren't more critics of a system that is so blatantly ruinous.
Look at everything around you, totally stacked against you - and the Centrists have stolen the framework as the status-quo.
Guardian columnists barking on recently how Starmer is right to do this or that just embellishes lack of critical thinking.
https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1661086941075390469?t=jaGPC1kzNxJ3mmkBbxQ1vg&s=19
I mean, I like George but he was another in the push against the Corbyn era.
Clearly - change is a total threat to certain pretend progressives. If you want these outcomes you need to fight for change.
That's what makes the Tory threads on here so rabid - they're totally outraged on the basis of corruption and personality as opposed to accepting change or new ways of doing things.
AI is way better than Jeremy Hunt – you would soon see an improvement if he was replaced with AI.
And yet the people are happy if he does a better job than his predecessor - not putting the economy into a doom loop within 2 weeks of getting the gig. And his party make bullshit promises about letting less foreigners in, obvs.
The last 7 years have lowered expectations to dangerous levels of tolerance of ineptitude.
The Truss thing was simply misunderstood but a useful stomp to shut her up. (No mention of the BoE performing Q/T just be she set out her contrarian agenda).
She was daft but it was mostly put out of context in the name of tanking the pound or interest rates.
Tories have always rubbish with the economy but in a quiet way. And it's all okay if it's seen as par for the course.
Don't understand the bleating of Truss if people looked at the economy as a whole and understood the way pensions system operated then they would understand it's totally wonky like lots of financial 'solutions'. And highlights the laughable connection between the BoE and the Government.
Built on leverage and risk. A massive Tory made problem at the outset.
The discussion over capping food prices is an interesting one - and the correct solution to a short term problems.
Be very interested to see how this pans out.
Definitely a swing left if it happens - and proof that inflation is not being controlled at the BoE.
Be very interesting to see how Labour respond.
Probably won't happen as it clearly shows the market again being dysfunctional.
I mean, I like George but he was another in the push against the Corbyn era.
What I like about this criticism is that it suggests that the opinions of semi-regular Guardian columnists are influential.
The discussion over capping food prices is an interesting one – and the correct solution to a short term problems.
Be very interested to see how this pans out.
I'm gazing into my crystal ball and seeing farmers and food processors being paid less, and sending shit overseas to be sold at market price, and delivery failures at supermarkets, and TescoBuryAsda shrugging its shoulders, and the Tories messing it up even further. It's a great move by the Tories (from Labour's perspective) at the small price of screwing farmers, processors and consumers for an indefinite period.
What I like about this criticism is that it suggests that the opinions of semi-regular Guardian columnists are influential
What I like about your opinion of my opinion is I didn't actually mention influence. (And I know Guardian readership to be small.)
I’m gazing into my crystal ball and seeing farmers and food processors being paid less, and sending shit overseas to be sold at market price, and delivery failures at supermarkets, and TescoBuryAsda shrugging its shoulders, and the Tories messing it up even further. It’s a great move by the Tories (from Labour’s perspective) at the small price of screwing farmers, processors and consumers for an indefinite period
Lmfao - it's as if capitalism wasn't already doing that part.
I don't doubt a Tory price control will end up being messy - but if you look at markets generally they've not served the consumer or the supplier very well.
Price controls are in some way the only fix currently. Sorry to break the bad news.
Implementation is another thing. France already do this.
Price controls are in some way the only fix currently. Sorry to break the bad news.
This is total fantasy, of course. It will never work. You want to smooth the rough edges of capitalism off by applying voluntary price controls? gtfooh
Capping retail prices without capping costs of production or increasing subsidies can lead to under supply, and more informal rationing. Imports will be sold elsewhere. More UK farmers will refocus their production, have a fallow year, or just give up.
Many UK farms are already squeezed.
Capping retailer margins would make more sense if the government is really concerned about supermarkets taking the piss out of the public (and suppliers) with their over developed market share/power.
Price controls are in some way the only fix currently. Sorry to break the bad news.
This is total fantasy, of course. It will never work.
It depends what you mean by "work". There were price controls in place from 1965 until Margaret Thatcher became prime minister in 1979.
Did they work? Well by definition they kept prices down. Inflation was another issue though - for a start oil prices quadrupled in the 1970s and inflation was rampant.
Although with price controls, and indeed price subsidies, it meant that basic foods such milk, sugar, etc, could be kept affordable despite inflation.
Initially after Thatcher became PM inflation remained very high until the effects of mass unemployment and recession kicked in - then inflation, unsurprisingly, fell.
So depending on what your aims are mass unemployment and recession could "work".
We've have (weak) price controls on energy it certainly helped if not enough.
Claiming Farmers are squeezed - of course but that's a product of capitalism -were Centrists raging before? Food has been too cheap in this country and wages too low, that's the real issue.
Look, these are short term fixes. Everyone's inflation is different.
Capping retailer margins would make more sense if the government is really concerned about supermarkets taking the piss out of the public (and suppliers) with their over developed market share/power.
Agreed.
Someone has to bear the brunt of the inflation irrespective.
It just gets moved about.
Don't forget farmers have been heavily subsidised in the past. We have total distortion in this country of what a market is.
But for Labour to push against price controls as an idea is MADNESS.
This is total fantasy, of course. It will never work. You want to smooth the rough edges of capitalism off by applying voluntary price controls? gtfooh
No I said price controls could work in the short term. And I said the Tories will be probably screw it up.
I'm for long term solutions.
Did you factor in to your point that people are already getting screwed by capitalism? Or did you decide the minute the Tories decided to tinker with the market (as with energy) is total fantasy - because that leaves Labour looking impotent?
James Meadway and John McDonell have been calling for price controls for months if you want a non-Tory slant.
(It's not the rough edges of capitalism either - it's the total failure of it to work in the interests of society.)
We need a transparent pricing structure so that prices move with the markets* more quickly. Use price regulation as a back up if prices are sustained at too high a level, rather than as a crude measure of nothing applied twice a year
*Food, fuel, energy, etc
Let's see what a barrel of oil or a litre of milk cost to get out of the ground or cow, process, transport, package and to point of sale and who makes a barely sustainable profit and who makes a fortune.
No prizes for guessing correctly 🙂 It might even lower inflation
Not aiming this at anyone in particular because I know people have multi-faceted opinions on here - but I'm finding it interesting that some people (especially Guardian columnists) that would appear have a Centrist or Liberal viewpoint that might support the current Labour party - appear to support 35+ year old theories of market economics.
I would say you're lagging in your understanding of how the current economic conditions have come about. Regulation clearly isn't the solution either - because regulation itself becomes flaccid.
It's simple on the surface - assets/money has ended up in too few hands. To readdress that you have to have some uncomfortable form of redistribution - for example via taxation to reduce spending power or the ability of buying up resources. Equally, massive spending on areas of society that have been left behind (energy, housing, infrastructure.)
Any other position such as regulation or private/state intiative will simply carry on the transfer of wealth.
(Being in the EU doesn't fix any of this either.)
Just because we have this form of capitalism doesn't mean by doing it 'better' we will solve problems. The policy is the problem.
(One prominent member a while ago said he just wished government was ran as well as Amazon. I mean, is there a better example of ignoring the larger cost to society just so you can get your consumer fix?)
Amazon are good at what they do for sure but you can't run government like that. Government has to look after its people and it has the power to make things better for everyone.
Regulation clearly isn’t the solution either – because regulation itself becomes flaccid.
Price controls are regulation.
One prominent member a while ago said he just wished government was ran as well as Amazon.
The idiot centrists on here basically want efficiently managed exploitation of the poor and the working class. The message is pretty straightforward, 'we don't mind being ripped off, as long as we know how much it's going to be so we can budget for it'. Pathetic.
Price controls are regulation
I probably wouldn't disagree. It's definitely tinkering and not a long term solution.
Don't forget the energy market was subject to a market cap and a subsidy.
It's called market intervention, a way of creating fairer prices for the least well off on a short term basis.
And until you know the exact details I wouldn't call it anything.
Just to add - price controls could be described as direct intervention depending on how it's implemented.
I see a bit of difference between that and regulation.
Funny I don't remember him saying the same about Corbyn.
https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1663822144738848768?s=20
Yes it's hilarious the shift in position from these Tory outrage faux-left supporters.
New Statesman did a hilarious article on this climate.
Centre-left cringe comes with an obsession with the vibes and “values” of politics. The teeth-gnashing hatred of Boris Johnson centred on his deceit, unkemptness and disregard for the dignities of high office. Suited-and-booted Rishi Sunak generates noticeably less hostility, despite him being significantly to the right of Johnson on both economics and culture.
My sentiments exactly. I think it too complex for Supertanskiii to see beyond Brexit as the only stop point. Oh as with Ian Dunt add in loads of sweary cleverness and you're golden.
Russ Jones FFS.
Centre-left cringe comes with an obsession with the vibes and “values” of politics. The teeth-gnashing hatred of Boris Johnson centred on his deceit, unkemptness and disregard for the dignities of high office. Suited-and-booted Rishi Sunak generates noticeably less hostility, despite him being significantly to the right of Johnson on both economics and culture.
Yup, that is something which has genuinely long baffled me. Especially as those who appear most obsessed with personality over policies are often so contemptuous of ordinary voters - due to voters alledged lack of political sophistication.
Funny I don’t remember him saying the same about Corbyn.
Before we left the EU. After Corbyn had called for an immediate triggering of Article 50 without any plan for what comes next. It's like having your foot amputated... get a second opinion before you do so. Once you have taken the big step (sorry for the pun), compare the different proposals for moving on... I mean, you could get angry with people now proposing a particular prosthetic foot because you've had your foot removed... but...
Before we left the EU.
that is indeed a key point there
I expect another electoral cycle before we rejoin the SM & after that fully rejoining would still take a while
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/brexit-rishi-sunak-labour-daily-express-britain-b2348811.html
"Britain’s future is outside the EU. Not in the single market, not in the customs union, not with a return to freedom of movement. Those arguments are in the past, where they belong.”
I guess the hope for remainers is that Starmer's now well-known inconsistency and dishonesty simply makes him say whatever he thinks he needs to say to win an election, and that he doesn't actually mean any of it.
"Every one of the problems I have outlined can be fixed from outside the EU. But it will require hard work, good relations and – above all - honesty"
It is strange that Starmer should emphasize the need for "honesty". It suggests either a serious lack of self-awareness or total shamelessness. Or more likely a bit of both.
“Pretending everything is going fine or ducking hard conversations will see Britain miss opportunities and slip behind our competitors”, he said.
“If we are to get this right, Rishi Sunak must face up to the truth – that the Tories have got this wrong. Failure to do the hard yards needed to right those wrongs will mean the Tories fail to deliver for Britain and fail to deliver on the promise of Brexit.”
As one of the few posters here that supported leaving the EU... do you agree with Starmer, and think that it looks like the Tories are going to fail to deliver on the promise of Brexit?
Pretty depressing reading that Express article. And because of the electoral system, voters are now left with only three options at the next election;
1. Bad Tory
2. Not-as-bad Tory
3. Protest vote that counts for nothing
Well if the protest vote has popular support then it certainly doesn't count for nothing.
Voters do have a choice. It is minority opinions that don't get fair representation.
Pretty depressing reading that Express article
You remember that vote that we all took part in, in 2016? That.
Before we left the EU. After Corbyn had called for an immediate triggering of Article 50 without any plan for what comes next. It’s like having your foot amputated… get a second opinion before you do so.
This goes around in circles but a possible Labour victory and leaving the EU might have been the better option. And viable back then.
So now you have a terrible Tory option - and a terrible Labour confused right-wing option.
I would argue the opposite of the timing - it would have been better to have a Labour government guiding the way out back then than accepting a new Labour government now that doesn't seem interested in a way out.
I'm sorry but the position was simply anti-Corbyn and nothing else.
I mean, you could get angry with people now proposing a particular prosthetic foot because you’ve had your foot removed… but…
Or you could have had your foot removed ages ago and the NHS might now be in batter shape to fix it as opposed to your prosthetic turning up and not fitting correctly.
that doesn’t seem interested in a way out.
There doesn't appear to be the votes in suggesting that Brexit could (or should) be reversed. I know the polls show that many folks are now regretting their vote to leave, but that doesn't necessarily translate into votes for the party suggesting it. Pretty much every one who is hoping for Labour to take an anti-Brexit stand is voting for it anyway. It also raises the question of "what does re-join look like?" and TBH, if I was Starmer rightly or wrongly- and there's clearly a debate to be had there, I'd not want the next 5 years just re-fighting the same arguments again. Re-joining is fraught with so many political elephant traps that it's perfectly possible to think both "Brexit is totally shit" and "we're stuck with this for the fore-see able" at the same time.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-brexit-keir-starmer-poll-b2347833.html
Anyone know who the top pollster is?
https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1663877366802706432?s=20
Peter Kellner, for Deltapoll.
EDIT: Commissioned by "Labour Movement for Europe"
https://twitter.com/stellacreasy/status/1663868760690761728?s=20