Forum menu
I don't think any of us have seen the nadir of thr Tories. They're savage.
The red tops will come out in favour of SKS as they wont want to be on the losing side.
I think the fact that he shares political views which aren't a million miles from theirs probably also plays a part.
Yes that makes it easier for them.
<p style="text-align: center;">Now Lewis is being expelled</p>
you can’t post a comment like that without an amusing picture alongside it.
Sorry, im not up to Binners level of visual wit and incisive cartoonery but i now get why he does it, I must have had nearly every lefty head banger on here bite. So much easy than trying to respond imtelligently to rinse and repeat leftist ramblings.
Funny every one is ok calling the Tory loons head bangers although to be fair if there are any hard right head bangers on here they keep really quiet.
Meanwhile back in the real world Starmers all you've have got, Jezza got purged, so its either Starmer or more Tory destruction. I know where my vote is going.
Much better to elucidate an argument and ps don't mock the afflicted.
What's the Clive Lewis news then? You obviously know something the Internet doesn't.
After six months of the Labour lead over the Tories very slowly narrowing the last couple of weeks they have been slowly widening again
Still, according to some SKS's policies are terrible and they could win far more voters if they changed...
Who is saying that ^^ ?
It is hard to imagine that Labour could manage to get 'far more' than 51% of the vote.
And wasn't aware that Starmer had much in the way of policies.
Still, according to some SKS’s policies are terrible and they could win far more voters if they changed…
There’s very little doubt that Starmer will be the next PM. For some that is enough, but those of us who are critical are more concerned with what he will do (or more what he won’t do) than whether he wins or not. Winning the election should not be the measure of success.
Still, according to some SKS’s policies are terrible and they could win far more voters if they changed…
So you are happy for Labour to win even if they don't really do anything different, great. Would you not be even happier if they won and actually did something progressive, I don't know, along the lines of Labour/socialist ideals?
Likewise, are you not disappointed they are not going to be doing that?
When Labour get in, do pretty much nothing for 5 years and then the Tories get back in was that really anything to celebrate?
It's not just that Starmer is not doing things of value for the country - it's that he and Reeves are actively following Tory lines whilst somehow pretending they're progressive.
Reeves has apparently, complete faith in the Bank of England whilst criticising the Tories for high interest rates. The two positions make no sense.
The BoE with its ridiculous mandate which liberals have loved up - and its fawned 'independence' has failed.
Andrew Bailey was installed by Johnson and has a history degree FFS.
If Rachel Reeves can't see a technical way out of this or a solution then she and Labour are as bad as the Tories.
<p style="text-align: left;">And would not change a thing, and thus carry on the same trajectory. I do not care a ounce about removing Tories for this to be the position. Too much is made of Tory antics whilst ignoring their overlap with Centrist/right-wing politics.</p>
Andrew Bailey was installed by Johnson and has a history degree FFS.
A good reminder that it isn’t politically independent. All the problems at the BofE stem from who we elected, who they appoint, what remit they set, and government fiscal policy. Just another example of how Boris Johnson broke Britain. If you don’t think Starmer and Reeves will do a better job in government, fair enough. But if elected they will have to do that job. They’re not going to pretend there are no restraints on spending, because at the end of the day they might (hopefully) have to do all this stuff for real, not for fun on the internet.
Yep it's not independent at all.
MPC is selected by Chancellor, it's following the government's mandate. And the government can overrule decisions in the countries interest. (BoE 1998)
It's an arm of Government with the pretence of someone to blame, and currently they are not acting in the country's interest either by adding income to asset owners and driving more inflation or when rates gets to 6% with the looming mortgage concerns.
It's ridiculous and not economically sound to follow either of these paths.
Rachel Reeves is not doing her job by not suggesting the government could intervene.
They’re not going to pretend there are no restraints on spending, because at the end of the day they might (hopefully) have to do all this stuff for real, not for fun on the internet.
That's not an accurate reflection of their attitudes.
As you very well know currently the country is in dire need of government spending - so to pretend there's magical fiscal restriction whistle ignoring the affects of a society on its knees is not just a lie, it's totally the opposite to economic demands.
Look it's simple: government needs to spend or forever ensure a declining society. Using made up fiscal rules is like saying you can't go to the cinema ever again because they've run out of tickets to give you.
Government uses money to provision itself and taxes to make space for that provision. Anything else fiscally is made up for the sake of restricting what we can and can't do. (Save real resources)
For Liberal fact fans - the ones that got excited because they heard James o'Brien getting excited about Truss's economy 'tanking' ideas - well 2 year gilts are now above what happened just after that chaos.
How much crying has there been about this?
There is no 'good' version of being a Tory.
Seems there is no good version of a Labour government that has a chance of being in power either based on comments above.
Rone when 3 out of the last posts on a thread are yours its time to take a breath and step away from the keyboard for a while. We know you're passionate about your views on alternative monetary theory, unfortunately for you most people don't believe they will work or aren't ready for such a radical step. This is the real world Starmer is fighting elections in, he has to appeal to voters who are ignorant of real world problems and don't understand any monetary theory. Remember the blatantly untrue claims on the side of a bus, people lapped it up even though it was very easy to find out the true figure was a lot less and even that didnt take into account all the other benefits we had. Breaking with orthodoxy at the moment leads him wide open to accusations of unfunded pie in the sky policies however untrue that might be, the accusation will stick because it panders to the ignorance and cherished views many voters hold.
This is the real world Starmer is fighting elections in
LOL Starmer isn't fighting an election, it is being handed to him on a plate!
Currently more than half of voters are saying that they would vote Labour in a general election despite not even knowing what will be in Labour's election manifesto.
Voters are clearly utterly fed up with the Tories. If the Tories lose some of their safest seats in the upcoming by-elections, as some feel they might, it will not be because Starmer has put up a good fight but because the Tories are fatally wounded after shooting themselves in the foot so many times.
To use a football analogy, it’s 0-0 with ten minutes to go in the cup final, the opposition have had 2 men sent off and their best player is off injured, and labour are still playing with 5 men at the back.
And starmer has just run on the pitch shimmied past the labour defence ,nutmegged his goalie and then booted the ball into the labour goal.
And Starmer is currently fighting a brilliant fight in Scotland 😉
The opposition Labour Party will win more seats than the Scottish National Party in Scotland in the next general election
Labour's two greatest rivals, the Tories and the SNP, are in dire unprecedented self-inflicted crisis in the months leading up to a general election, has there ever been a luckier Labour leader in history?
Clive Lewis? Read him (twice) yesterday speculating that being expelled from the RMT parliamentary group was a prelude to being expelled from the party . Today it's gone. We'll just have to wait and see.
I think Clive Lewis was expelled from the RMT parliamentary group 4 years ago.
They don't move fast. Clive Lewis clearly doesn't fit within Starmers Labour Party so he should be concerned.
Rone when 3 out of the last posts on a thread are yours its time to take a breath and step away from the keyboard for a while. We know you’re passionate about your views on alternative monetary theory, unfortunately for you most people don’t believe they will work or aren’t ready for such a radical step.
Very unreasonable comment.
MMT explains how the system works currently. Testable, provable and descriptive.
The fact that Starmer tells lies/misunderstands fiscal operations is vital to understand where we are going.
MMT happens now - you just get to choose whether it's an aircraft carrier, new school, pandemic spending or tax cuts.
Why do people applaud maintaining the misunderstanding of our spending capacity, and ability to do good things? It's truly ignorant and we will never get anywhere if we don't hold politicians to account for what they should be doing.
You got to laugh - 6 years of Brexit ranting - never gets old. A couple of years pointing out the misunderstanding/mis-selling of government finances and I need to step away.
A truly dirisory position to take.
If you want solutions and outcomes you'd best understand how it all works.
I sometimes think STW is a safehaven for folk that want the world to be shit just so they can complain and never be part of fixing the problem because basically they haven't taken time out to understand the way things work.
(Also last 3 posts were mine because I was rushing to work all day and have to squeeze them in before I go.)
MMT happens now – you just get to choose whether it’s an aircraft carrier, new school, pandemic spending or tax cuts.
Yup, IMO politics/economics is just about priorities and nothing else. The "rules" are created to justify particular priorities.
And yes, a fair few on stw just want to nod in agreement with other punters over how much they hate the Tories/voters/anyone with a different opinion. In their world everything is very simple indeed .....Tories/voters/anyone with a different opinion are all thick and stupid, including bizarrely all those in power who they claim are taking us all for idiots.
Very unreasonable comment
Hardly, I carefully worded it so as to not take a position on your views, i simply pointed out that most people either dont understand anything about any of the monetary theories and few can get beyond the household budget analogy so for any politician trying to get their party into power explaining the inner workings of an alternative to the status quo economically isnt a vote winner even if it is the best thing since sliced bread.
As for the other part of your quote, i stand by that, carpet bombing threads like this isnt convincing anyone who isnt already a believer that your view of economic theory is right or would work. You cant argue people into submission, especially on the internet.
trying to get their party into power explaining the inner workings of an alternative to the status quo economically isnt a vote winner even if it is the best thing since sliced bread.
So you think voters should be sold a lie then, such as the need for balanced budgets/austerity? How does that move us forward?
It is not just about winning elections it is also about changing things. Otherwise if all that interests you is a strategy to win elections then the obvious party to back would be the Tories - they have won most of the general elections for the last 200 years.
So you think voters should be sold a lie then, such as the need for balanced budgets/austerity?
I believe it is a matter of opinion wether or not that is needed. Referring to a genuinely held but different opinion as a 'lie' is a terrible thing to do.
In their world everything is very simple indeed …..Tories/voters/anyone with a different opinion are all thick and stupid
You're one of the worst culprits for this Ernie, tbh.
I sometimes think STW is a safehaven for folk that want the world to be shit just so they can complain and never be part of fixing the problem
Also for people who complain about other people on STW not fixing the system, and when asked how they tell them to vote or go on a protest march or something. Because that always works if only we weren't too feeble minded to do it.
Referring to a genuinely held but different opinion as a ‘lie’ is a terrible thing to do.
Perhaps you should read the thread more carefully, I even copied and pasted the revelant bit:
trying to get their party into power explaining the inner workings of an alternative to the status quo economically isnt a vote winner even if it is the best thing since sliced bread.
It is not simply a "different opinion" it is suggesting ignoring the truth, even if it "the best thing since sliced bread".
And as for me calling Tories/voters/anyone with a different opinion thick and stupid that is clearly nonsense. I don't think I have ever called anyone thick and stupid on stw, let alone "one of the worst culprits".
Far from it, I fully recognise that senior Tory politicians are anything but stupid - I repeatedly pointed out that they win elections and succeed in their aims to transfer greater wealth and power into the hands of the super rich. And whilst I might not agree with all voters I do not automatically dismiss them as stupid racists.
By all means criticise what I post but try to restrict it to things that I actually say💡
i simply pointed out that most people either dont understand anything about any of the monetary theories and few can get beyond the household budget analogy so for any politician trying to get their party into power explaining the inner workings of an alternative to the status quo economically isnt a vote winner even if it is the best thing since sliced bread.
It is actually very simple to explain and if it was explained, simply, every time anybody asked an MP "how are you going to fund it" (which is a hell off a lot of times) it would start to get through to people after a few years. But absolutely nobody is doing that and people like Rachel Reeves are making it worse. John McDonnell was the last person who probably had a grip on it.
Yup, IMO politics/economics is just about priorities and nothing else. The “rules” are created to justify particular priorities.
Exactly, and you can vote for parties that have similar priorities to yours - Oh
Nice one Kerley.
Also - my point in this thread for context - lack of money is being used as a reason Labour can't do things we desperately need. Every progressive, even mild Liberal ought to be on to this, it's in their interests.
Anyone this side of the Tories must be at least arguing for a better NHS and all that comes with it. And Nationalisation for instance; good things desperately needed for 95% of people.
Starmer is simply using pretend lack of money to not offer these things up - its lazy and a total lie.
Anyone who doesn't get just needs to be pointed towards the Pandemic where the state stepped in and did its thing (it could've done it better of course but that's the politics ) the economics were always there. No taxes were involved.
I do think some people of the left feel there is well meaning Robin Hood effect of taking money from the rich - you've got to resist this urge as a logical debate. Sure tax them loads but not to fund anything just to remove their capacity to drain resources away from the rest of us and make fiscal space.
Lack of money is Tory framing. Liberals (and lots of the left)have inherited that framing. Like all Tory arguments its designed to remove access to a better way of life for the rest of us.
Progressives should argue for what we need and can do- not the cost.
if it was explained, simply, every time anybody asked an MP “how are you going to fund it” (which is a hell off a lot of times) it would start to get through to people after a few years.
That is exactly what the Tories do - repeat the same mantra over and over again in their speeches and interviews until people eventually believe that it must be true.
Thatcher did it with TINA and the claim that the economy is like a household budget, and Cameron did it with austerity and the need for balanced budgets.
If the right-wing of the Labour Party go along with it it's because they support the status quo and simply have no intention of changing anything.
It is not because voters are not ready to listen to an alternative economic strategy. In fact with the current cost of living economic crisis, along with the crisis in the NHS, the utilities, and housing, and I would say that there is a captive audience out there for any party which challenges the false neoliberal arguments.
Which is presumably why the Tories have become the shyest they have ever been in the last 45 years to talk about TINA and the need for balanced budgets. In fact the word "austerity", which the Tories once used at every opportunity, has now become an unmentionable dirty word for them.
What a time for Labour to let the Tories set the economic agenda.
In fact the word “austerity”, which the Tories once used at every opportunity, has now become an unmentionable dirty word for them.
It was world-beating austerity, though.
Ah wonderful, in the Sunday Times today, SKS is quoted as saying he hates "tree huggers" and he's already criticised Just Stop Oil so we're faced with another version of Cameron's disastrous "cutting the green crap" policies which have ultimately cost the UK dearly with energy prices through the roof.
Does no-one really consider that all the jobs and economic strength in the world amount to nothing if the world is on fire or under flood water?!
Getting depressed with this, he's just another ****ing Tory. 🤬
Does no-one really consider that all the jobs and economic strength in the world amount to nothing if the world is on fire or under flood water?!
It won't be within a week so it doesn't matter
MMT = magic money tree. Worked a treat for Sri Lanka. Oh wait, no.
We've had Blair's Institute for Global Change, Cameron proposed a year of change, now Starmer talks of driving change. Is 'change' the formula for winning elections or is it how much we'll be paid?
'Change, choice, reforms' seems to mean more privatisation and 'difficult choices' means austerity. You've Mandy giving electoral advice and Labour genuflecting one at a time in front of Murdoch. It doesn't look good.
Oh and 'growth' means trickle down.
MMT = magic money tree. Worked a treat for Sri Lanka. Oh wait, no.
This is another lame one.
We already operate an MMT system. Can't get away from it. That's what sovereign countries do. Good or bad policy.
Sri-lanka - had a massive problem with energy shortages, food imports etc and large external foreign debt. Inflation already taken hold at this point.
MMT is very clear about these things causing problems in the economy. If you have a problematic economy and you simply start issuing money of course you're going to stoke inflation. See Zimbabwe. But the money issuance is not the cause.
The point is here every example that someone drags up in these scenarios is not an example of MMT done wrong, it's usually an example of someone who simply doesn't understand what MMT is and they read some right-wing crud about 'printing money.'
Macro-economics is covered in misdirection and the monetarists want you to believe that MMT causes issues when it's exactly the opposite - Neoliberalism causes the issues. MMT doesn't do anything alone other than describe currency issuing governments.
The idea is to take the understanding that MMT offers and shape policy around your needs - MMT is not an ideology.
MMT simply says money derives from the Government/Central Bank and we are not dependent on borrowing from the private sector. It's up to you what you do with that power.
Simple way to look at it- we all (mostly) agree austerity was a bad idea ... MMT is the opposite of that concept. So if you're anti-austerity you probably already accept what MMT prescribes.
Worked a treat for Sri Lanka.
Lazy and laughable. FFS if you’re going to engage in a debate on economics at least try and sound informed.
MMT = magic money tree. Worked a treat for Sri Lanka. Oh wait, no.
I have no idea about Sri Lanka but I do know that the magic money tree worked a proper treat to bail out the banks And more recently to finance the staggeringly high costs of the pandemic.
In fact it has been there throughout history to provide bountiful quantities of money even when the country was allegedly skint - when Margaret Thatcher lectured the country that the government had to cut unaffordable spending the magic money tree suddenly stepped in and supplied her with all the money necessary to fight an expensive war in the South Atlantic. No questions asked.
And as for me calling Tories/voters/anyone with a different opinion thick and stupid that is clearly nonsense. I don’t think I have ever called anyone thick and stupid on stw, let alone “one of the worst culprits”.
Describing someone's posts as 'clearly nonsense' is the same as calling them stupid.
Every progressive, even mild Liberal ought to be on to this, it’s in their interests.
I agree however it's just too easy to criticise. If a party needing votes were to come out with this they'd leave themselves seriously open to attack.
As I've said before, education is the bottom line. If we were taught economics in school, and MMT, then austerity would never have happened. People are for the most part hugely ignorant, and it's far easier to abuse that fact than it is to educate them. And that has to happen in school because after that most people just don't care to learn anything any more. In fact it's the only place you can avoid your message being hijacked by self interest groups these days.
as for me calling Tories/voters/anyone with a different opinion thick and stupid that is clearly nonsense.
Describing someone’s posts as ‘clearly nonsense’ is the same as calling them stupid.
Gosh, you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel, aren't you?!? 😂
Still, if you want to post nonsense then that is up to you.
But it doesn't provide any evidence that I call Tories, voters, and anyone with a different opinion, thick and stupid.
I am not in a position to judge anyone's intelligence. And I certainly don't go for the lazy option of "they must be stupid if they disagree with me", which is so popular with some on stw.
Describing someone’s posts as ‘clearly nonsense’ is the same as calling them stupid.
So if someone posts something that's factually wrong you're not allowed to say so? Honestly some people on here need to grow a thicker skin.
From the horses mouth. There is no hope of anything really changing or improving. I suppose it's a novel campaigning strategy. 🤷♂️
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/09/labour-promises-tory-mismanagement-public-finances
Labour won’t make promises it can’t keep
-Wes Streeting
Keir Starmer has promised that under his premiership the UK will have a higher sustained growth than Italy, Canada, France, Japan, Germany, and the United States.
https://labour.org.uk/missions/growing-the-economy/
Based on Wes Streeting's claim that Labour won't make promises it can't keep Keir Starmer must feel very confident indeed that it can deliver on that promise.
It does beg the question though why Keir Starmer didn't keep any of the promises that he previously made - has he only just decided that you shouldn't make empty promises?
They absolutely can't get the growth powered by government without the subsequent deficit spend.
The two are incompatible. For growth to happen there has to be new money introduced by the government and/or we have to have an environment with low interest rates, low inflation so companies want to borrow from the commercial bank sector. I personally don't buy the simple argument you just cut interest rates (not happening in the short term) and cut taxes and things kick off
I absolutely cannot see a scenario that will allow this to happen.
Government(s) are dumb for not getting this.
New New Labour are trapped into believing the private sector will magically start growing again because they swallowed the Tory cool-aid.
Also growth is the wrong target these days.
(I think a tiny growth report will be seen as a massive success.)
Gosh, you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel, aren’t you?!?\
No mate just trying to help you sound less egregious online.
So if someone posts something that’s factually wrong you’re not allowed to say so?
You can point it out, just do it nicely. Not too much to ask is it? Being decent to each other?
You can point it out, just do it nicely. Not too much to ask is it? Being decent to each other?
Hit the report button the next time you see the word "nonsense" used and let a mod sort it out - official warning etc.
In the meantime personal attacks aside any comments which relate to Keir Starmer?
Sri Lanka has its own Central Bank.
For growth to happen there has to be new money introduced by the government and/or we have to have an environment with low interest rates, low inflation so companies want to borrow from the commercial bank sector.
They can introduce many new rupees to create growth, yes?
And/or no?
<p style="text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;">Sri Lanka has its own Central Bank.</p></p>
I know, but it has large external foreign debts compared to domestic debt -an economy reliant on imported energy etc.
Totally missing the point - you can still have a problematic economy even with control of things. But what you can't do is issue more and more money just for the hell of it to get you out of a bind.
<p style="text-align: left;">They can introduce many new rupees to create growth, yes?</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">And/or no?</p>
Only if you are not adding to inflation and targeting something where the employment slack and resources exist.
But you can't 'print' your way out of trouble.
(Fortunately in the UK we don't have large external debts and we have things in need of spending on.)
MMT clearly says too much money being spent on the wrong things can be inflationary.
https://stephaniekelton.substack.com/p/no-mmt-didnt-wreck-sri-lanka
Sri Lanka’s economic policies don’t even come close to anything informed by MMT insights. Sri Lanka’s government ignored its structural weaknesses, didn’t invest in food/energy and strategic domestic productive capacity, didn’t tax/regulate abusive market power, has a corrupt political system dominated by a single family,
Think about the UK as it is now - well with an MMT lens you might have invested in energy years ago (without the concerns of being too expensive to fund) to provide better energy infrastructure and we could have avoided inflation relating to imported energy now.
None of this is counter intuitive at all. You have your own government money and yet the reluctance to invest in the correct state things - because of a pretend lack of money causes issues further down the line.
But sure as hell don't blame MMT because your country has done lots of other stupid things with a government that has technically avoided doing a decent job
So, MMT could be characterised alternatively as "being smart enough to identify infrastructure projects that are worth the government spending on now to deliver future benefits to society and not kicking that can down the road"?
If so, I'm a convert.
But it would mean having a government that isn't obsessed with a 5 year cycle and not wanting to upset the vested interests...
So this is just the MMT thread again?
Governments with control of their own currency can always spend more. This can have negative as well as positive effects if used without caution. Using the lens of MMT doesn’t remove the negative effects and risks of getting the balance of spending/tax/gilts wrong. Spend big without corresponding plans to recover that money could result in even more difficult inflation and currency devaluation. A possible government still needs to talk about the balance between government expenditure and “income” (to use language that people inderstand) to be taken seriously. Investment is needed, but just because it isn’t directly “funded” by taxation and bonds doesn’t mean that there is no restrictions on what can be possible without planning to increase the tax take from the private sector. Labour need to explain the tax changes and growth driven increased tax revenue that forms part of their plans not just talk of the investment increases that they want to achieve. Using MMT to try and change that conversion to spend without concern to how you also bring money back into the state is a political game that will so easily be demolished. People need to see a holistic approach to government, they will not trust anyone who only talks of spending.
^^^
Or if the government just spends on projects that don't then deliver any benefits - either through poor forward forecasting or wilful ignorance - jobs for the boys/girls again.
As Rone says, it’s about political choices. What the increased spending is spent on, and who it goes to, and how much if it they get to keep. Difficult choices are still needed. Obviously many here don’t trust the Labour front bench to make those choices to make positive change. Others don’t trust Labour not to waste the money. I trust them more on both counts than I do the Tories. The next government will be led by a Labour team or a Tory team. Vote wisely.
An SKS labour government will be akin to treating cancer with painkillers. It might bring some temporary relief, but it isn't going to help fix the problem. In fact it could well cause more longterm suffering as the needed remedies are ignored, as the temporary pain relief is hailed as a success.
Mr Miliband is said to have told his colleagues of the hope and change his policies would bring, receiving only a lukewarm reception from Sir Keir.
Sir Keir “thanked him for his presentation but said he wasn’t interested in hope and change”, according to a source.
Another step closer to the Tory Party.
<p style="text-align: center;">Didn't JMKeynes address the issue of getting the money back through the multiplier effect? Plus many infrastructure developments have a low import content hence avoiding the marginal propensity to leak.</p>
That Independant article is just a reading of the Times one posted above. No sources named. There's a lot of "Miliband vs Starmer" leaks going in the direction of the Times... no idea who from or how reliable it all is.
Funny how Starmer didn't hate tree huggers when he was doing pro-bono work on the McLibel trial. He literally volunteered his own time to help a couple of tree huggers beat a global corporation. I'm with Ernie on this one, the labour party will keep quiet in advance of the election, but once in power his critics will feel free to speak their minds and he'll have a fight on his hands to stay in power if he refuses to act like a labour PM. Looks like Miliband could be one of the people on the other side.
I suspect that the Independent feels the sources are credible otherwise they are unlikely to have reported the Times article.
The Independent is known to highly critical of the Tory Party and as such supportive of the Labour Party, they are unlikely to report something which is potentially damaging to Starmer if they felt that the source was unreliable. The link wasn't to the Daily Mail or Daily Telegraph.
Although I can understand why someone for whom Starmer can do no wrong would want to question the reliability of this story.
Obviously a much more casual attitude is taken with regards to anything which is even vaguely critical of the Tories. In that situation it's all true!
Although I can understand why someone for whom Starmer can do no wrong would want to question the reliability of this story.
Who is this someone? And of course I'm going to try and consider the source, accuracy and motivation behind an unnamed source quoted in the press. It would be fascinating to know who the source is and what they're trying to achieve.
And of course I’m going to try and consider the source, accuracy and motivation behind an unnamed source quoted in the press.
But of course the Independent doesn't do that, it simply regurgitates articles from Tory supporting newspapers for its readers without giving a second thought to the likely accuracy.
Unnamed Labour sources briefing against the Labour leader was never a problem when Corbyn was leader, nor is it obviously a problem when it applies to stories critical of the Tories.
But suddenly it becomes totally unacceptable when it comes to your man who can do no wrong and you spend every day defending.
Unnamed Labour sources briefing against the Labour leader was never a problem when Corbyn was leader, nor is it obviously a problem when it applies to stories critical of the Tories. But suddenly it becomes totally unacceptable when it comes to your man who can do no wrong and you spend every day defending.
I think you have someone else in mind, because none of that characterises my thoughts or actions as regards unnamed source stories. I’ve long said that all such stories should be taken with a pinch of salt. Those lent weight with phrases like “someone close to the Prime Minister” being the worst.
And I’ve never said that Starmer can do no wrong, or is even the best person for the job, or anything of the such. I spent ages saying that Labour should replace him, but that they wouldn’t, while acknowledging having him as PM with other Labour people around him will be better for this country than the alternative in front of us. If I look like I think he can “do no wrong” it is in comparison to your negative obsession about him that bleeds through all the political threads, no matter the topic.
As for defending Corbyn and Labour under his leadership, I voted for Labour, and tried to persuade as many people as possible to do the same. You didn’t even vote for Labour under him at the last general election and ranted about him being “woke”. Everyone with a chance of improving this country is the enemy for you. All your defence of Corbyn now he has no chance of being PM means nothing. We had the chance to have a more left wing government, people like you didn’t vote for that chance, now we have to compromise far more with those voters not on the left to move this country on. Another loss, another 5 or more years of the current lot running the country down, is unthinkable.
I honestly don't know what you on about in most of that rambling attack Kelvin. I haven't accused you of not defending Corbyn. And yes, I have never been one of Corbyn's greatest fans. I did however hugely support many of his policies and I thought the 2017 election manifesto was excellent, although Andrew Fisher wrote it not Corbyn.
And as for this:
If I look like I think he can “do no wrong” it is in comparison to your negative obsession about him that bleeds through all the political threads, no matter the topic.
That is simply nonsense. I have a hugely positive attitude to Starmer's 10 Pledges, I agree with at least 95% of everything he says in those 10 Pledges. And no one on here bangs on how great Starmer's 10 Pledges are more than me. I am constantly posting them at every opportunity pointing out how they are still on Starmer's website. Here they are again :
https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/
I will very willingly agree with Starmer when I believe that he has got it right. For example I totally agree with Starmer that the Referendum is history and that it is time to move on.
You on the other hand defend every position that Starmer takes, including every U-turn, screeching handbrake turn, and policy somersault. According to you it is never Starmer's fault - it is simply because he has no choice.
You have even defended his brexit U-turn which is particularly staggering considering your intense hostility to brexit, but such is your unwavering loyalty to the man - if he did yet another U-turn on FOM you would no doubt support that too.
I support what I believe serves the best interests of ordinary working people, not a bizarre loyalty to politicians.
I thought the 2017 election manifesto was excellent
Something we can agree on.
But it's not 2017 now, and not enough people voted in favour of either that or the 2019 manifesto, sadly. Labour has changed. It had to.
When Johnson got his thumping majority in 2019, and inflicted "all this" on us, did you vote Labour?
did you vote Labour?
You can't make up your mind whether to accuse me of giving Corbyn unwaveringly support or not supporting him at all.
Anyway back to Starmer. Here's an interesting article from the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/04/u-turns-labour-keir-starmer-tuition-fees-income-tax
Just wondering how you voted at the last election, because all your moaning about how Labour have changed since then under a new leader ("U-turns") is given some perspective by how you acted then. Did you vote Labour at the last general election? If not, what did you think a new leader would offer you to get you on side? If you're a lost cause, perhaps the needs and wants and concerns of other voters are what the Labour team have to keep in mind with both eyes firmly on the next election.
Unite overwhelmingly rejects disaffiliation from the Labour Party
because all your moaning about how Labour have changed since then under a new leader (“U-turns”)
Politicians repeatedly U-turning on their stated policies is generally not considered to be a good thing. Strange therefore that you should characterize as "moaning".
And now is certainly not the right time for Unite to discuss disaffiliation from the Labour Party. We need to wait at least until Labour has formed a government, failed to deliver, and there is a realistic alternative.
Events will force the issue. No point jumping the gun.
Sharon Graham is no fan of Starmer.
Keir Starmer has been put “on notice” by the leader of Britain’s biggest trade union, who said that its support should not be treated as a “blank cheque”.
Sharon Graham, the general secretary of Unite, signalled a rift remained with the Labour leadership despite delegates voting to remain affiliated with the party.
Delegates “overwhelmingly” chose to retain Unite’s formal link with Labour, with Graham among those who spoke in favour.
“This is the moment of maximum leverage for the union where we can hold Labour to account,” she said. “Now cannot be the time to walk away. We would be weakening our own arm.
She certainly might not be speaking in favour in a few years time.
Politicians repeatedly U-turning on their stated policies is generally not considered to be a good thing.
Polices change. Not just because the state and circumstances of the country has been changed in recent years, but because the last election was lost by Labour. 2024 isn't 2019. Policies had to change.
Did you vote Labour at the last general election? If not, how did you need policy between elections to change to win your vote next time?
Labour has changed. It had to.
The only change that was required back then was for labour MPs to support their party's policies and refrain from calling their leader a 'f***** racist and anti-semite'. Given Starmer is now expelling people from the party for tweeting a few years ago that they should cooperate with other parties, the bar for labour MPs back then was extremely low.
now expelling people from the party for tweeting a few years ago that they should cooperate with other parties
Who are your referring to there?
- wasn't expelled, merely challenged to explain his actions
- the cross party deal was between Greens and LibDems to unseat Labour councillors
Polices change. Not just because the state and circumstances of the country has been changed in recent years, but because the last election was lost by Labour. 2024 isn’t 2019. Policies had to change.
Now you are pretending that Starmer has only done U-turns on the policies that he had from before the last general election.
Starmer became Labour leader in 2020, he has done U-turns on pretty much all his policies - there have been no general elections since 2019, so you can't use that as excuse.
Starmer wrote his 10 Pledges after the 2019 general election.
His ever growing list of U-turns (see the Guardian link above) is fast becoming the stuff of legends. Is it any wonder that no one really knows where he stands on anything?
The good news is that it means no one has a particularly compelling reason not to vote Labour - just vote Labour and you will find out soon enough what it means, just hope that it is something which you approve of.
Now you are pretending that Starmer has only done U-turns on the policies that he had from before the last general election.
Didn't say that. Didn't imply that. Don't think that. Read again...
the state and circumstances of the country has been changed in recent years
You were never voting Labour anyway. Such an opportunity wasted in 2019. It's a shame you couldn't vote with us. More importantly, a shame that so many others didn't either. I'm still concerned that once the campaign proper gets underway then it could go the same way again, and people will be scared off Labour, or a coalition of chaos, or whatever else the Tories and the papers can push repeatedly for a few months while voters are considering their options.