Forum menu
are we saying that, because Starmer isn’t Corbyn, or the leader of The SWP, we may as well give Sunak and his Band of Breakers another Five Year Plan?
Well, if you vote Labour then you're really voting for No Change. If you want them to sit up, take notice, and maybe rethink their approach then perhaps it's time to stop thinking in 5-year election cycles and look at the longer term picture. I'm reminded that Winnie Ewing was first elected to Westminster in 1967, 33 years after the SNP was formed, and it would be another 31 years before devolution was implemented. I'm not suggesting that your desires should be put on hold for that long but you perhaps get my drift. 😉
are we saying that, because Starmer isn’t Corbyn, or the leader of The SWP, we may as well give Sunak and his Band of Breakers another Five Year Plan?
FFS no one has even mentioned Corbyn. All we're talking about is Starmer doing basic labour things which will benefit the most disadvantaged such as the scrapping the two child benefits policy and/or providing universal free school meals. But he won't even do that because 'we can't afford it'. 🙄
TBH on the two-child policy I fully expect he'll get rid of it, but for now it's an easy issue for him to demonstrate his supposed fiscal conservatism and willingness to make 'tough decisions'. With a possible autumn election on the horizon having a battle with the leftwing of his party is good for him.
Well, if you vote Labour then you’re really voting for No Change.
No doubt the labour leadership will argue that people voted for whatever it is they campaign on and use that as a defence of the status quo (that's exactly what Blair argued). But as Ernie has said more than a few times, the minute Starmer is in power he will have a fight on with the wider party to do stuff that will help working people. The only source of hope for change is that the labour party will be powerful enough to force through progressive policies that Starmer and Reeves can't resist.
Being PM is always going to be a tricky task. With a population of circa 68 million you have almost as many views on what the right thing to do is. People with similar political leanings will agree about a number of things but not everything, let alone those with polar opposite political leanings. I feel there are several areas of our UK infrastructure that need a comprehensive overhaul and transformation - but how many "ordinary" people will be willing to vote for a party that will start that process, knowing that it's likely to take years to accomplish. Then tax system, NHS and social services are all areas that are currently broken that we keep adding and pulling off sticky plasters in the hope that no-one notices how fundamentally broken they are. Then add in the housing market, utilities and local services and that starts adding up quite quickly to a mountain of change that needs to happen. Easier to just pretend that a few tweaks here and there will keep it all ticking along.
Like many other posters on this thread, I genuinely don't know where I will vote at the next GE. To be fair, the last few elections have not been flush with positive options - but this time it feels more desperate. 🙁
Which means that he is effectively the beginning and end of the labour party.
This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
The seeds were sown long ago by the likes of Mandelson and Blair. The writing has been on the wall for many years thay Labour were no longer the party of working people.
The Jeremy Corbyn leadership was but a temporary, albeit serious, blip, aberration, away from the hijacking of the Labour Party by conservatives. Even I was fooled for a sort while, after years of giving up on Labour, of believing that perhaps it could be saved and re-established as the party which puts the interests of ordinary people first.
But the establishment and conservative sympathizers regrouped, fought back, regained control - through deceit, and are now more powerful and more in control than ever.
I remain however totally optimistic. Never in my lifetime, or probably in my grandparents lifetime, have the Tories been as discredited in the eyes of the electorate as they are today, something which I find hugely positive.
I am very much looking forward to a Labour government with a huge majority because although I don't believe that they have anything credible to offer it is important that they too are discredited in the eyes of the electorate.
As long as people believe that only a change of management is needed nothing will ever change.
I support Labour like a rope supports a hanged man. The critical issue imo is what ultimately fills the vacuum left by discredited mainstream parties.
Edit: I managed to quote both Churchill and Lenin in the same post.....cool 😎
Teachers got a better deal through industrial action and I expect the doctors will too, with absolutely no support or actual opposition from the LP. It would be naive in the extreme to think that Starmer will deliver anything without a fight but many people are learning that lesson. The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle.
"But, given the state of the public finances, we will not be left with the money to simply service failure: it is reform or bust."
This paragraph from Starmer's piece in the Observer is probably the most depressing contortion I've ever heard from a senior Labour MP.
He should be taken to task on this logic. It's a total fabrication of reality.</p>
Public services are not created with reform. They are created with new money every time, and they are desperately underfunded.
It's not reform or bust. There is no universe where that makes sense.
(I've no idea why I keep getting formatting code in my posts it's driving me crackers.)
I remain however totally optimistic. Never in my lifetime, or probably in my grandparents lifetime, have the Tories been as discredited in the eyes of the electorate as they are today, something which I find hugely positive.
I don't think this will stick in the public minds.
5 years of Starmer nothingness and it will be back to the Tories.
5 years of Starmer [s]nothingness[/s] saying the Tories were right and it will be back to the Tories.
FTFY
I'll vote for Starmer (if I'm still in the UK) as I don't want 5 more years of these right wing libertarians in power any longer. Who knows he may have a more radical agenda once he wins. Hopefully the red wall will also vote labour unlike 2019 which let BoJos mob in.
What's the alternative, realistically?
I live in Scotland so it's easier for me, I'll vote SNP.
I don't support every policy of theirs, but I support their left-of-centre strategy & beliefs AND they're the ones in my constituency that have the best chance of ensuring the Tories lose the seat.
I suggest that others do exactly the same, support the party nearest their beliefs & hopes AND who are best placed to keep out the party you dislike the most.
And remember, every penny that Labour say they'll spend the newspapers will say that taxes are going up while not reminding their readers that their taxes are already (for ordinary folk) the highest in living memory and will continue to increase (frozen allowances) under the Tories.
I've met people who work in shoe factories and are struggling with the cost of living who think our local MP, one Andrea Leadsom is great!
I’ve met people who work in shoe factories and are struggling with the cost of living who think our local MP, one Andrea Leadsom is great!
That is the problem right there. But of course we can't call those people stupid or ill informed, even though looking into things for 10 minutes would have them voting anything but Leadsom but they probably "don't do politics".
I see that Labour's purge of Jamie Driscoll worked well.
"Renationalise power, water, railways and the Royal Mail"
I agree with power, not so sure about water, as there are MASSIVE debts there. A Regulator with teeth is needed there.
Dont you realise the railways are pretty much nationalised now? Why do you think there are still on-going strikes? Because the DfT wont allow the wage rises asked. The Private Companies running on Network Rails lines have no strike problems, they were settled months ago, it is the nationalised (most of them) ones that are in dispute.
The Royal Mail? It’s a basket case, and unlikely to recover. It isnt the 1990’s where they had too much money to spend, it’s the digital age, where letters are a dying business. Parcels, despite the boom in their delivery, are not the cash cow many think, the profit margins are meagre. I’m glad they are not nationalised, as the taxpayer would be funding their decline.
I’m glad they are not nationalised, as the taxpayer would be funding their decline.
They wouldn't.
Simple: with government money you are never on the hook.
When it's private the individual will always pay. In other words you are paying now for decline.
Dont you realise the railways are pretty much nationalised now?
Which is obviously why Keir Starmer supports the nationalisation of the railways.
There is nothing radical about nationalising the railways, it is pretty much Tory policy.
Parcels, despite the boom in their delivery, are not the cash cow many think, the profit margins are meagre
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">The parcel side of the business was spun out and appears quite profitable. The letters side had been left to flounder and the PO have been back to government asking for more money.</span>
Do the PO still have the obligation to deliver letters below cost for organisations that pre-sort the mail they hand over?
I seem to recall at the point of privatisation their were several obligations forced onto the PO, that hamstrung them as a business, and made it likely they would slowly fail and gave a competitive advantage for the existing private competition to cherry pick where they could be successful.
Apparently Thatcher hated the 'milk snatcher' tag and LP membership can't be all that chuffed with him earning the 'Sir Kid Starver' title before he's even in No 10. The Tyneside mayoralty and Islington North look like they'll be interesting elections. He's lost so many members and subscriptions you do wonder who'll be out on the knocker. A few losses to ex-Labour independents might wake up the membership to the need to ditch him and become a bit less like the tories.
Here is a very stupid Labour MP who has not a clue about the economy and how it works.
https://twitter.com/ITVNewsPolitics/status/1681227743575277568?t=poyLleZ96g6VmbhAlArekw&s=19
She simply needs stopping in her tracks and explaining how the government owns the BoE and never has an account full of money but creates it on demand through the spending process.
Can you see how this stuff controls the way a government acts in a totally reckless and needless way?
Labour are giving me endless reasons not to vote for them.
Labour are giving me endless reasons not to vote for them.
Since you won't be voting Tory, and thanks to first-past-the-post, Labour don't give a monkeys . They know for certainty that approximately 75% of voters will either vote Tory or Labour.
Publicly announcing that they will keep the Tories's two-child benefit cap is electorally safe for Labour because anyone unhappy with that decision is not going to vote Tory.
With the LibDems and the SNP significantly less of a threat than previously Labour can now afford to share the same priorities as the Tories. And reducing child poverty isn't one of them.
Unless ... Unless, Hunt now does a pie in the face of Labour and turns just enough spending taps on making them look ridiculous. (Pay rises , tax cuts)
That could happen.
I don't believe that anything can save the Tories now, the gap between them and Labour has been widening again for the last month. This isn't midterm blues, well most of it isn't.
https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/
Even if Hunt does as you suggest that would most likely play into Labour's hand with voters. Turning on the spending taps would go against the Tories's own script, a script which for years they have drummed into voters. Labour would only need to claim that they are now the party of fiscal prudence relying on all the false premises long established by the Tories.
Unless … Unless, Hunt now does a pie in the face of Labour and turns just enough spending taps on making them look ridiculous.
I don't think they know how to spend to help people, it is now ingrained that increased spending is given to corporations, that they don't know how to use money to benefit actual people anymore.
All true - but spending/ tax cutting to increase chances at election time is what I'm thinking of.
Even if Hunt does as you suggest that would most likely play into Labour’s hand with voters. Turning on the spending taps would go against the Tories’s own script, a script which for years they have drummed into voters. Labour would only need to claim that they are now the party of fiscal prudence relying on all the false premises long established by the Tories.
There is all that and there has always been that but it's easy for the Tories to claim they've created a surplus or some bollocks and thus can do x,y,z.
All I'm running with is MPs tend to offer stuff up when they think it will work in their electoral advantage not for the benefit of the people.
What else can the Tories do?
None of this makes me feel any better about Lucy Powell's dumb ass interview.
but it’s easy for the Tories to claim they’ve created a surplus or some bollocks and thus can do x,y,z.
After years of doom and gloom and a cost of living crises I reckon it will be very hard for the current government to claim just before a general election that everything is hunky-dory and that they can suddenly afford to be uncharacteristically generous.
Unless you believe that the economy might genuinely be healthy by the time of the general election?
Edit: And even if they did it wouldn't necessarily pull the rug from under Labour - Rachel Reeves could do exactly the the same as Gordon Brown did in 1997 and pledge to match Tory spending penny for penny.
Tory Chancellor Ken Clarke claimed he was "gobsmacked" when he heard Gordon Brown make the announcement.
https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1681271008701841408?t=2o3vA2WVw8JLBm2URD7NTA&s=19
The Tories created a magical surplus out of a fiscal black hole just after Truss.
All rubbish - but they said what they said
It's the role of government to create the conditions for the private sector to thrive. If no one is willing to create those conditions then it will never do anything other than flat line or decline.
The economy doesn't just get better entirely on its own - so one political party or another has to do something rather than keep waiting for random conditions to just improve.
I mean both political parties seem to be okay with the BoE policy of adding money (from a no-money-left position) to people with assets.
We really need to go beyond the claim that politicians behave the way they do because they are stupid.
If you don't understand the problem then you are unlikely to understand the solution.
I don't know about Lucy Powell but Rachel Reeves is anything but stupid.
The problem definitely isn't stupidity. Any policy disagreement reflects conflicting interests and conflicting priorities.
Good christ, it's like Lucy Powell went looking for the stupidest one liners Labour cabinet members have ever come out with, found "“I’m afraid there is no money." and went "Yeah that's snappy, I like that, and what harm can it do?"
David Cameron did very well out of the original one liner.
If aping the Tories is Starmer's strategy then I guess it makes sense to try to use the same tactics which have benefitted the Tories in the past.
The good news is that Lucy Powell is promising jam tomorrow:
"However, the shadow cabinet minister Lucy Powell suggested that any significant changes would have to wait until a second term."
So no significant changes to help elevate child poverty from the first 5 years of a Labour government then. To give this some context a Labour government introduced free universal healthcare, something which had been never been done before anywhere in the Western world, two years after winning a general election and at a time when Britain was totally skint.
I note that Labour now embraces Tory language when it talks of "tough decisions" to describe policies which don't enjoy public support.
When you read the Guardian article in the link and all the talk "difficult and tough choices" and comments like :
Starmer said Labour had had to make “really ruthless” decisions
It is beginning to seem to me that Starmer is actually wallowing in appearing to appear tough and ruthless. I wouldn't be surprised if he was deliberately taking unpopular decisions purely to appear tough and ruthless.
Margaret Thatcher made much capital out of appearing to be tough and ruthless, never flinching no matter how much human misery her policies caused. "You turn if you want, the Lady's not for turning" was her proudly declaring that she was tough and totally uncompromising.
No doubt as Starmer believes that a similar attitude from him will endear him to Tory voters, the only people he seems to truly care about.
"The gentleman is for rotating so fast you could fit a generator to him and power a major city"
(cough)...
So vote labour to keep the tories out...
Is that line still being pedaled?
More like vote Labour to get a tory party that is a bit less harsh/crazy. The 'bit less' is get smaller by the week.
Jonathan Portes, professor of economics and public policy at King’s College London, said the claim was “laughable”.
“This is an absurd way of talking about policymaking,” he told The Independent. “Talking about there being no money left is the economics of the kindergarten.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/starmer-labour-benefit-cap-u-turn-b2377390.html
I like that........"the economics of the kindergarten"
Almost as much as I like Sir Kid Starver.
I'm very curious as to whether labour MPs such as Lucy Powell actually believe there is no money left or if it's all just messaging. Surely the latter I would think but using such an idiotic phrase when there is no need shows that maybe they actually do think this. Bizarre.
I think it is a bit of both. A LOT of people really do not understand how a countries economy works and no MP is trying to put that straight for some reason.
A LOT of people really do not understand how a countries economy works
I don't expect a lot of people to understand how govt finances work, but it would seem to be a fundamental requirement for a member of parliament and shadow cabinet member who will soon be creating policy and overseeing its implementation.
So you are saying they do understand but want to play along with all the previous messages to their benefit?
Saying the country doesn't have a billion to lessen child poverty is quite shocking isn't it if they indeed do actually know the country easily has that. I guess they just don't want to help that problem at all.
Point is there's no need to go there. Lucy Powell should be challenged.
It's now considered a vote winner to not help people by pretending there's no money. (There will be plenty of money put aside for Wars - such as Ukraine 6Bn iirc)
And eventually one or more party will have to spend. So pretending there's no government money left is the daftest thing in the economy.
Surprise inflation drop will help Sunak but they've done nothing for that really, it's just parts of the inflation working its way out of the system.
But it will look good on them.
https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1681620518984613889?t=OUMsPW6ynRUQmJpeLlgoAA&s=19
On the do MPs know about government money - I was chatting with this economist in York (from the Uni) about it and he thought some did know about it but aren't prepared to put their head above the parapet and some don't at all because they've only listened to classical economists.
Knowing which ones is tricky - we were hoping to get some Labour MPs to interviews but not pulled it off yet.
I'm going to contact Lucy Powell. I've been sending the odd copy of the deficit myth to certain MPs.
https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1681558409001181184?t=OaIkIJQYAIb6QpnDbhgKeQ&s=19
Rachel Reeves is simply lying.
Same place it always comes from.
NEW: Keir Starmer's net favourability drops to -22
Source for that :
I like that……..”the economics of the kindergarten”
Totally.
A surprisingly good comment piece in the Daily Telegraph:
"So, no matter what your view on the issue, you simply can’t trust him"
I reckon it is probably fair to assume that will be a central line of attack when the general election campaigns kicks off in full swing - it doesn't matter what Starmer says as he simply can't be trusted.
And it is hard to argue against this :
Supportive commentators claim that Starmer is wise to abandon expensive Left-wing policies, because this will supposedly demonstrate to voters that he’s a responsible, grown-up politician who can be trusted with their money.
Well, maybe. Frankly, though, I think most voters will just find his behaviour ridiculous. Time and again, he tells us that the Government’s policies are cruel, damaging, disgraceful and wrong – and then he tells us that he’s going to keep them.
It's only a matter of time before he gets caught out in the real world.
That might be when he's elected of course but it will come down hard.
Centrist's have forgotten about policy, and simply ignore the bad ones and u-turns - choosing to adopt some terrible Tory ideas in the chaos .
Either way I've never known a leader of such vapour walk through the park, mostly without any scrutiny.
Desperately sad times.
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1682032659516764162?t=s1YqNhNPe8UGCNaqmhDaYg&s=19
The Nothing Party.
Centrist’s have forgotten about policy
The word 'centrist' bothers me a lot.
It's a word which is flung about far to easily by both tory and labour flag flyers as being too far left or too far right depending on the narrative either want to push.
Some on here almost use this word as some sort of slur or slight against even handed politicaly moderate opinions.
Squeaky bum time for the nasty party?
Tory win by a few hundred votes.
Gutted! The Tories have squeaked in, Tory candidate highlighting the imposition of ULEZ as a key factor. A wake up call for Starmer and the Labour Party.
Well there you go.
All the trying to be bad cover versions of the Tories.
Starmer needs a proper kick up the arse.
Well Labour are pointless to be fair, the only thing they have going for them is that they are not quite as diabolical as the conservatives.
<p style="text-align: center;">The word ‘centrist’ bothers me a lot.</p>
Why? It's a badge of honour for some Labour voters.
In my mind it's like saying we accept right-wing politics without the chaos of the Tory party.
And it needs calling out.
I can just about take being called hard-left because I consider pushing back against Tory politics the right thing to do. Rather than pushing simply on incompetence and corruption.
Something Centrists simply don't get.
Some on here almost use this word as some sort of slur or slight against even handed politicaly moderate opinions
Centrists understand the economy in Neoliberal terms. They can have the slur.
Why? It’s a badge of honour for some Labour voters.
I'm not a labour voter, I vote lib dem or Green.
But I'd settle for labour over the conservatives given the current situation.
I’m not a labour voter, I vote lib dem or Green.
Well if you were Libdem you would skew towards Centrist but certainly not the case for green!
I'm not applying any criticism towards you but Centrism follows Tory economic policy. So does need some push back.
This system doesn't work so well on my phone. Apologies if not correct. I'm trying to straighten it out.
I think you are confusing liberalism with centrism... it's kind of offensive that in this day and age, people in the UK seem to have a self belief which is becoming kind of a global joke.
It becomes even more of a joke when UK voters feel they have to vote tory or labour, both of which are very bad.
My philosophy is essentially just 'Wheatons law'. It's universal, it's scalable.
What's the difference between Liberalism and Centrism when it comes to macro-economic policy?
What’s the difference between Liberalism and Centrism when it comes to macro-economic policy?
A dot on a graph. Tears in the rain.
Although I will say, there is no such thing as a centrist.
I think we should have a police force, which is quite autoritarian.
But it should be funded through some sort of gereral taxation, which is quite socialist.
I think we should have free health care via general taxation... that's extremely socialst, but don't tell Nigel or his alleged russian donors!
I thin we need to re nationalise gas and electric, but it has to be done properly, and with transparency.
I agree with freedom of expression.
So please do tell me, what pigeon hole do you think I belong in?
And please, don't tell me to vote laboour or tory.
It does beg the question, what fall-guy are the tories going to front for Uxbridge now?
Maybe it's Nigel farages time to shine?
Anyone see the Reform UK guy in the Selby result? Dave Kent, I think?
The only one to stand there with his hands in his pockets and not clap as Kier was announced to have won. Bad loser or what.😂
The headline in the express tomorrow will be telling... probably no mention of this, but lots of stuff about small boats.
The only one to stand there with his hands in his pockets and not clap as Kier was announced to have won. Bad loser or what.
I won't be clapping either, it is hardly a victory for change.
Kier Mather, born in 1998, studied history and politics at the University of Oxford. He's also a former parliamentary researcher for shadow health secretary Wes Streeting, who works as a senior public affairs advisor at the Confederation of British Industry (CBI).
A good night for Labour and the Libs. Not a huge fan of Starmer nowadays but there's no denying his strategy (or it it really Mandleson's / Blair's) is working. Labour / Lib Dem coalition is looking like a possibility at the next election though which might not be a bad thing.
Didn't de Pfeffel introduce ULEZ zones? Why's Khan carrying the can for executing a policy set in motion (and needed, after all) by his predecessor.
(NB, doesn't mean that policy shouldn't be changed where wrong - but I'm not convinced this is a wrong policy even if it is a vote loser)
Also - proof again of our innate selfishness
"Air quality and climate chage is really important"
"We know, something has to be done"
"It'll require effort and sacrifice on your behalf though"
"Will it? **** that then!"
Wot the sheeple of Uxbridge don’t no is dat Cars Cause Chemtrails. Each one has a speshal pipe on the back that emits a killer gas that you are charged £1.40 a leeter to convert at death stations.
The government are trying to cover it up but Khan is exposing the truth.
Do your own research.
Those were anti-Tory votes, not pro Starmer but we expect the claim.
Uxbridge loss could be useful, rather find out now than @ the GE a chance to hone the message for London and SE (we hear your concerns etc...)
Not a huge fan of Starmer nowadays but there’s no denying his strategy (or it it really Mandleson’s / Blair’s) is working.
The strategy didn't work at all in Somerton and Frome, the result there was worse than in 2019 - a drop of 10% in Labour's share of the vote.
What happened yesterday is all about how unpopular the Tories are with voters and how people will vote for whoever they need to to defeat them.
Do wonder if there was some tactical voting in Frome and Selby to take out the Tories. It's not exactly prime Labour territory.
Disappointed to see the back story of the new youngest MP. He may be an excellent MP but Oxbridge graduates with no real world life/job experience don’t fill me with confidence, and I have skin in that game.