Forum menu
@dissonance : That's all a fair point about that one sentence. Either way - a "Labour won mostly because Tories switched to them" narrative is untenable, and minimizes the role of the SNP's own underperformance and why people who voted for them last time are abandoning them - either for other parties or the couch.
Over the last 10 years its moved well to the left of Labour
Isn't the consensus view on here that Labour has moved well to the right in the last decade and are little better than Tories? I think one budding Alistair Campbell repeatedly described them as "two cheeks of the same arse"???
SNP opposes raising NI and VAT, favours low business taxes, wants to be in NATO, wants back into the Common Market, wants more "support" for the oil and gas sector, and doesn't favour renationalisation of privatised industries. It also has a bunch of incremental benefits for the poor and provides free tertiary healthcare etc. These are classic, left-right straddling centrist boring policies. With the exception of independence, this could also be the Lib Dem platform.
https://www.snp.org/policies/
There is a also a large body of voters who float between SNP and Labour.
This seat particularly just seems to go back and forth between SNP and Labour.
Labour really need to release the "policy handbrake" at the conference and go into full attack mode.
The Bad Ship Tory is fully breached, listing in icy waters, with the grubby ****ers clambering over women and children to get into the £10k a day "Consultancy Lifeboats" clutching their suitcases full of pilfered public money, all while Braverman and a load of blackface minstrels are on deck blasting out their last hate-filled song.
Over the last 10 years its [s]moved[/s] stayed well to the left of Labour
Might be more accurate?
Either way, this result isn't exactly the cataclysm that some are reporting. It's a seat that has changed hands at 5 elections now and prior to that was (boundary changes notwithstanding) solidly Labour.
Unfortunate really. The SNP leadership can look at the result and think "ah, who gives a damn" rather than look at the bigger picture. While I doubt we're going to see a SNP wipeout at the next GE, I predict large losses and a hit to their finances as a result. That will subsequently affect the next Holyrood election too.
Anyway, there should be a special thread for Scottish politics 😉
tjagain Full Member
The SNP is a centrist republican movement.
Thats what it used to be. Over the last 10 years its moved well to the left of Labour and that has caused tension in the ranks with the traditionalist part of the party trying to regain some control since Sturgeon went.
Given that Kate Forbes came pretty close to becoming leader of the SNP it feels like the party's leftism may not be as firmly entrenched as it is sometimes presented.
Over the last 10 years its moved well to the left of Labour
Including the period 2015-2019? Or didn't Labour election manifestos apply to Scotland?
Youve got to hand it to the Tories
theyve snookered Labour on this one
grim that theyve effectively blocked High Speed Rail from ever reaching the North to do it
https://twitter.com/thomasforth/status/1709998656462434426
That’s all a fair point about that one sentence. Either way – a “Labour won mostly because Tories switched to them” narrative is untenable
No it was about your entire claim. Especially the one about "It is mathematically impossible".
Whilst I would agree tjagains claim is unlikely to be accurate so was your equally wild claim.
Youve got to hand it to the Tories
theyve snookered Labour on this one
I tend towards the opposite. The tories have screwed up here.
Given all the claims about fiscal responsibility it would have put Labour in a difficult position to argue for HS2. On a pure cost benefit perspective its really unclear especially given prices will continue to spiral.
Now though they can just blame the tories for being unable to reinstate it. They can just argue the tories burn it down tactics have rendered it unfeasible.
Including the period 2015-2019? Or didn’t Labour election manifestos apply to Scotland?
I would say so. The second part of your question is rather more complex to answer. Sometimes depending is the answer 🙂 Rutherglen the candidate repudiated large parts of London labour positions. 🙂
The second part of your question is rather more complex to answer.
Is it? In the 2017 and 2019 general elections both the Labour Party and SNP had election manifestos, which party had the most left-wing election manifesto?
It's only as complicated as you want to make it.
Labour are, I suspect, very sadly, right not to promise to uncancel HS2.
But Labour has already "pledged" to build HS2 in full, whatever the current Tory government decided to do. No ifs or buts.
What totally unforeseeable circumstances have occurred which could not have been predicted?
However speaking after the Commons debate today, shadow Cabinet Office minister Nick Thomas-Symonds told the BBC's PM programme: "We will build HS2 in full and we will build Northern Powerhouse Rail in full.
"That's the clear pledge that we've given".
Including the period 2015-2019? Or didn’t Labour election manifestos apply to Scotland?
As per TJ it's rather nuanced. As long as it wasn't also an SNP policy then it applied, if it was then they would vote against it. See rail nationalisation for one such example.
Or didn’t Labour election manifestos apply to Scotland?
Is the second part of your question. I already answered the first. There was not a lot between then at the point you mention.
As for do labour manifestos apply? - well that depends 🙂 Mebbies aye an mebbies naw
this is not the thread for the minutiae of scots politics. I thought Rutherglen had some interesting takeaways for Starmer and the rest of us.
No it isn't, you are absolutely right, this thread is about the leader of the Labour Party in Westminster.
Which is why I asked you who had the most left-wing manifestos in the 2017 and 2019 Westminster elections after you claimed that over the last 10 years the SNP has moved well to the left of Labour.
I am not sure that you can discount 4 years out of the last 10 as irrelevant.
this is not the thread for the minutiae of scots politics.
Which is lucky for our SNP-supporting friends, as the SNP doesn't seem to have updated their policies since about early 2016!
https://www.snp.org/policy-area/economy/
“It is mathematically impossible”.
Ehh, that's bobbins when the number of voters fell, fair enough.
this is not the thread for the minutiae of scots politics.
Just mention Corbyn and binners will be along to thread police it back to his safe spot.
Talking of Corbyn, he was in Scotland the other day and he's decided he's in favour of IndyRef 2. Which is a change from when he was leader, when he was against it. Which was a change from before he was leader, when he was for it. Corbyn took Labour from 1 Scottish MP to 7 Scottish MPs (2017) to 2 (2019). Shambles.
Good thing Sir Keir of Starmerville doesn't change his mind about important policy issues so lightly, or isn't so unpopular in Scotland... 🩴🩴🩴
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-calls-future-labour-30780434
https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,jeremy-corbyn-attacks-snp-over-unwanted-and-unnecessary-independence-vote_7211.htm
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/06/08/sir-keir-starmer-ed-miliband-scotland-claims-north-sea-oil/
Talking of Corbyn, he was in Scotland the other day and he’s decided he’s in favour of IndyRef 2. Which is a change from when he was leader, when he was against it. Which was a change from before he was leader, when he was for it.
You appear to have totally misunderstood the role of the leader of the Labour Party, which isn't entirely surprising given the behaviour of recent Labour leaders.
It is not the role of the Labour leader to only espouse policies which he or she personally supports. He or she is there to make the case for policies which have been democratically decided upon.
If Corbyn had previously supported a second Scottish independence referendum but the majority of Labour members were opposed to it, it would have been wholly unacceptable for him, as you suggest, to have argued in favour.
He is now no longer Labour Party leader so he can now freely express his personal views on the issue. Don't slag him off for respecting the democratic will of party members, there are plenty of other genuine reasons for slagging him off.
Including apparently his continued support for IndyRef2. Constitutional referendums are at best a once in a generation event, you can't keep having them every few years until you get the exact result which you particularly want, and then stop having them, ffs.
Schools are crumbling, rercruitment and retention are in crisis and the LP's response? Reading around the class, games of chess and getting primary kids to clean their teeth. Inspirational!
Including apparently his continued support for IndyRef2. Constitutional referendums are at best a once in a generation event, you can’t keep having them every few years until you get the exact result which you particularly want, and then stop having them, ffs.
Seems to work ok for the Swiss.
Sort of.
I tend to believe that if a party has a referendum in its election manifesto and it subsequently becomes the government then the referendum should go ahead.
Anyway, there should be a special thread for Scottish politics
What like a separate one?
Independent of this one?
I don't follow Swiss politics closely but I believe that their referendums mainly concern legislative issues, I don't think the 26 cantons regularly hold referendums on whether they should be independent of the Swiss Confederation.
I tend to believe that if a party has a referendum in its election manifesto and it subsequently becomes the government then the referendum should go ahead.
And yet many people believe that David Cameron should never have honoured his election manifesto commitment to hold a referendum.
Anyway the Tories didn't get much in the way of the usual party conference bounce this week .
https://twitter.com/wethinkpolling/status/1710294002036007077
I expect that Labour will manage much better than that next week.
It's pretty bloody disheartening to see that 28% of voters would still vote Tory at this point. It truly makes your wonder what they would have to do to at make them vote LibDem/ Green* if not Labour?
Kill off around 200k people? Nah.
Ensure a lot of the Tory demographic die before receiving medical treatment? Nah.
Build on a field near their house or threaten the triple lock pension? Yep. That'll do it.
*I jest. No way are Tory voters going to vote Green.
It’s pretty bloody disheartening to see that 28% of voters would still vote Tory at this point.
I always wonder that. What have the tory party done or are planning to do that makes people think, yes that is the best option.
And with news of highest taxation, highest number of immigrants and so on you would think the set tory voter would turn away at that point but I suppose they have no where to go and just can't vote for other parties as none are close to their fundamental beliefs although Starmer is trying.
Anyway the Tories didn’t get much in the way of the usual party conference bounce this week
I don't know why any of the parties bother these days. It's just an opportunity for voters to see the evident confusion in policy when parties announce the grand go-ahead on projects that were completed years ago and on projects that were cancelled by them six months ago. The voters realise from the ovations that none of the attendees understand this either and that these people vote for our leadership candidates
It’s pretty bloody disheartening to see that 28% of voters would still vote Tory at this point
Because lots of people aren't really into politics and don't really watch the news or pay attention to this stuff. They have their "team" and that's who they vote for when they're asked (If they can be bothered) It wouldn't ever occur to some folks to either look at manifestos, change their vote or anything.
This website tends to have a load of threads that just show most live in a bubble away from the realities of the UK, and wider planet, there's a reason they've been in power so much over the last generation, and the real demographics in the UK tend to always favour them. Why do 28% still vote Tory, it's simple, they are aligned to their principles, they always will be, there is probably more than 28%, but a few % will always complain and say something different in a poll, but the minute they're actually voting, it's only ever going to be tory.
The next election will be tight, forget all these opinion polls up to the month of the election, there's a lot more that'll happen to swing voters, i tend to see the UK as similar to the US with Labour/Tories, if Labour get a bad feel before the election, then a lot of voters just sit it out and don't vote, which costs labour seats, whereas tories are like republicans, they will complain, moan and whinge, but always vote.
I expect that Labour will manage much better than that next week.
That shouldn't be difficult, it's a stunningly low bar!
there’s a reason they’ve been in power so much over the last generation, and the real demographics in the UK tend to always favour them
You are making "real" do a lot of work there. I think its rather more accurate to use a "biased voting system" favours them and a rather unbalanced press.
Why do 28% still vote Tory, it’s simple, they are aligned to their principles
Which doesnt really work when you look at how the tory principles change.
whereas tories are like republicans, they will complain, moan and whinge, but always vote.
Interesting you use another country with a rather unbalanced voting system. A cursory look at the voting numbers in the US doesnt really support this claim although it does support the dubious voting system argument.
Plus a similar dependency on those seats which are filled with people claiming not to rely on the state whilst massively relying on the state.
I don’t know why any of the parties bother these days.
Wasnt it really meant more as a jolly/get together for the party faithful and, for the lib dems and labour, a chance to vote on party policy?
I don’t know why any of the parties bother these days. It’s just an opportunity for voters to see the evident confusion in policy when......
Times have changed. There was a time when Conservative Party Conferences were highly stage managed events, devoid of any real political debate and simply an opportunity to parade Tory policies before loyal party members, many of whom knew more about baking cakes than about politics.
In contrast Labour Party Conferences were an example of democracy in action, with intense political debates igniting great passion and all sorts of bartering and compromises resulting in among other things "composite resolutions" .... exactly the sort of chaotic scenes which you would expect in a highly democratic environment where everyone has the right to both an opinion and to be heard, accumulating in a final great show of unity, as everyone together sung a rousing rendition of the Red Flag before bringing the Conference to a conclusion.
Today as a result of the failure of the neoliberal experiment the Conservatives are ideologically rudderless, they are no longer certain what they should believe in. This inevitably results in constant contradictions, from the Liz Truss mini budget to HS2. It obviously becomes apparent at their Party Conferences.
And today as a result of the New Labour years Labour Party Conferences have degenerated into grotesque stage managed events where dissent is not tolerated, see the manhandling of Walter Wolfgang as a classic example, and its primary purpose is to provide a platform for the party leader, who then, with his adoring wife by his side, preforms the laborious task of shaking hands with adoring party members, USA style.
This is an interesting slant on how politics is "done" and how/why the main parties become so similar... https://theconversation.com/ed-balls-and-george-osbornes-new-podcast-is-essential-listening-but-not-for-the-reasons-they-think-214747
Somewhere along the way Neoliberalism became the accepted way of running the UK's economics. And it was believed that if only done correctly it would work very well for all of us.
Trouble is very little of Neoliberal economics is supported by data. For instance probably all of us on here would agree trickle down is a failure but it's still the way we operate, and going forward even with a Labour government it will still be the model despite Starmer calling it a piss-take.
Most Neoliberal economics, and Monetary policy is built on nothing other than a wealthy person's version of society. So for instance there is no data for the BoE to support that fact that interest rates actually do anything useful for controlling inflation and - it's their number one tool. And has in fact worked in the opposite way - certainly in the US where's it's equivalent to a budget deficit of 6% more than normal. Trillions into the economy. I wonder why adding trillions to an economy doesn't slow supply based inflation? (That would correct itself eventually.)
Something will break if they keep going for sure - but not currently. After all inflation control is to try and use unemployment as the buffer stock to control it. Rotten, messed up logic
The point I'm getting at is nothing is coming along to replace the current model - Labour talk reform rather than spending and the Tories think tax cuts.
We're stuck as I see it. No one willing to make the decisions we desperately need to properly fix and fund things because of a failed and outmoded understanding of the economy that only serves the circular and parasiticial markets, and Tory pals
Somewhere along the way Neoliberalism became the accepted way
No it didnt, our economic management has evolved to this point due to societal change and what the wealthy will allow. Where we are is far from perfect but a great deal better than 100 years ago which was better than 200 years ago. What you continue to propose is also completely untested and would require a revolution rather than continued evolution. That wont be allowed to happen due to those pesky markets, the fact the world is a global economy and people arent ready for such a change. The electorate is not capable of dealing with complex issues or ready for the results, Brexit proved that.
Truss tried to do something different and look where that got us.
I do agree raising interest rates is not an appropriate tool for resolving our current inflation isues and the fact Sunak thinks halving inflation is a good thing shows how little the electorate understands economics. To have a similar standard of living to a few years ago we need deflation or huge wage rises which will be inflationary.
I thought this was quite a funny quote:
Conservative Party chairman Greg Hands said: “We all know Keir Starmer won’t tell us his plans if he becomes prime minister because he’s afraid of losing votes, and he changes his position to whatever he thinks people want to hear.
“Our country faces an important choice: Rishi Sunak, who will make the hard but necessary long-term decisions to get the country on the right path for the future, or Sir Keir Starmer, who is just like the same old politicians that have come before – always focused on the short-term and lacking the backbone to make the big changes Britain needs.”
Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/keir-starmer-labour-nhs-b2425988.html
It's almost like Starmer is following in Corbyns footsteps to electoral oblivion. Same mistakes... Sitting on the fence for too long will only get you knocked off the fence...
Corbyn tried that trick with brexit by keeping shtumm and it turned out he was a hard core racist brexiteer to rival the likes of Jacob rees Mogg, but granted, for very different ideological reasons.
We need open policy and statements of intent from PMs in waiting, and all MP's for that matter.
Not tactical fence sitting, or Escher style vocal gymnastics.
Say what you mean, and mean what you say...
It's not rocket science.
John McDonnell piece in Guardian yesterday said the same. Starmer actually needs to tell people, clearly, what he is planning to do. Having no clear idea of what he is actually going to be doing can cause voters to just switch off.
See what comes out this week as so far from any interviews I have seen with him it is not clear at all what differences he will try and make and I follow these thongs a bit closer than the average "I don't really do politics" voter.
'Corbyn was a hard core racist,' fascinating stuff, can you provide us with some evidence of this?
Corbyn tried that trick with brexit by keeping shtumm and it turned out he was a hard core racist brexiteer
Corbyn has always been a Brexiteer. He's also been too cosy with racists and anti-Semites, but despite these two things, I don't actually think he's a racist. He is not very bright (which is why he doesn't see the subtext of graffiti of big-nosed bankers dividing up the world, or why laying flowers at a PLO graveyard when you don't speal Arabic and don't know who's buried there is not a good idea), and he is also quite smug (which means he never admits he was wrong or over looked something, and thinks that being proved right is an important thing). Corbyn also has an incredibly simplistic view of the world where his enemy's enemy probably has quite a few good points (which is why he's been so happy to work for the Iranian government, favour nationalist terrorists in NI, and share platforms with "friends" from Hamas etc).
Truss tried to do something different and look where that got us.
I’m not sure it was different, more the same old discredited supply side economics that have been shown not to work.
Well, the conservatives are a bunch of *'s
Labour are a bunch of *'s
So my vote with the Lib dems or the greens, just by default.
I find it really offensive when people say 'you have to vote labour to keep the tories out' - it's just perpetuating the cycle of abuse...
..the voting public are in an abusive relationship with MP's.
I'm very bad at making good points, but why should I vote for something shit? I won't. I'll vote for a party I think can actually make a difference.
And that's not Labour, and it sure as hell isn't the conservatives.
I always wonder that. What have the tory party done or are planning to do that makes people think, yes that is the best option.
And with news of highest taxation, highest number of immigrants and so on you would think the set tory voter would turn away at that point
In any given batch of Vox pops the nearest thing to support for the tory policy you'll hear the phrase 'the other lot would be worse'. So how ever badly Tory policies are working out for the country or for them personally they don't see change as the answer. They're people who can't look at how bad things and think how they could be better, but instead more readily imagine how they'd be worse. These are the people the tory party are playing to when they blurt out all the 'you''l be forced to share 7 bins within a 15 minute radius' crap.
Truss tried to do something different and look where that got us.
She didnt really. She just ran standard policies but just at max speed. If it hadnt been for the pension funds running dubious new strategies which were prone to sudden shocks she probably would have got away with it.
As for keeping with what we have, ermmm, look where that has got us.
Your lets compare against 100 years ago misses the changes in the middle and how things have been dropping again.
I find it really offensive when people say ‘you have to vote labour to keep the tories out
Prepare to be offended 😁.
but why should I vote for something shit? I won’t. I’ll vote for a party I think can actually make a difference.
And that’s not Labour,
I feel the same way about the Lib Dems, but would vote for a Lib Dem candidate in the GE in a Tory/Lib Dem marginal to get the Tory out. If you don't vote Labour in a Tory/Lab marginal, you're helping the Tories to stay in power.
We may not like it (I hate it) but this is what we have to do until we get PR. Which will never ever happen under the Tories.
We may not like it (I hate it) but this is what we have to do until we get PR. Which will never ever happen under the Tories.
I don't hear Labour being supportive for PR either. The parties it would help are green, lib dems, whatever UKIP are now called. Tories and Labour don't need it.
Tories and Labour don’t need it.
Until the election after next , when the scumbags will oust labour with yet more hatred politics.
@kerley, I’m pretty sure it was voted for at the last Labour conference.
However there’s nothing more likely to mobilise the Conservative vote than the idea that if they don’t vote this time then this will probably be the last ever Conservative government.
Until the election after next , when the scumbags will oust labour with yet more hatred politics.
Even then though FPTP gives the centrists outsized power on the left. So some are happy to have the tories in power in return for them occasionally getting it.
Why do 28% still vote Tory, it’s simple, they are aligned to their principles, they always will be
Not really. Most people don't know what Tory principles are, or even their own. Most people are in favour of "taxing fat cats" for example but most people also don't know that Tories are ideologically opposed to that.
If we had to learn about basic politics in school the Tory vote would collapse.
Not really. Most people don’t know what Tory principles are, or even their own.
This. And it's why we have all the dross at the conference. Their actual ideology is pretty indefensible.
Somewhere along the way principles have been doomed in favour of so called centric pragmatism. But pragmatism is still apparently to carry on as we are with the shit that goes with it.
Political pragmatism would actually be to take control of failed private ownership of many services and bolster those that are crumbling. That would be true pragmatism but neither party at biting.
I've said it many times by way of example you can let the government pay for your water services or you can reap the bigger bills as an individual for failed utilities and skim cash to shareholders.
If we had to learn about basic politics in school the Tory vote would collapse.
In the latest poll of 18 - 24 weren't just 1% said to be voting tory? That would suggest it is not the people coming out of school. The strong tory voting age is mid 40's onwards when what was taught at school is long forgotten and people have their own money and prejudices well formed so tory seems like the answer for them.
i.e. an 18 year old probably cares a lot less about immigration than the average 60 year old.
She didnt really. She just ran standard policies but just at max speed. If it hadnt been for the pension funds running dubious new strategies which were prone to sudden shocks she probably would have got away with it.
Absolutely this.
Truss has become a catch all for 'crashed the economy' which is fine for anti-Tory sentiment but is total misunderstanding of a complex economic situation.
She's was out of step with the BoE (that shouldn't happen she should have been technically allowed to carry out her wishes) - and leverage in the markets is a problem always waiting to happen.
The pound crashing - well it pretty much recovered a few days later and arguably the pound should be weak to reflect general poor economic stability.
It mostly gets bought back up. It's currently weak again. That's the point of a floating currency.
Truss didn't really try anything solidly different - she stormed on with more neoliberal nonsense when having just come out of a pandemic - we needed stability. Growth doesn't come from tax cuts anyway that's her main error.
But this needs flipping around, if a progressive government does want to enact change - bond vigilantes and the BoE shouldn't be able to get in the way.
There has to be some big ripples if we want a better society, along with much push back of a systems that doesn't really serve us. Blaming Truss for interest rate rises is total misinformation - that was already underway with your central bank - with both political parties making a blessing of the BoE's mandate.
https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1710934231063433653?t=uz9NNnwAi2z9j5-VKwF0Xw&s=19
Delusional.
You can't carbon copy the Tories approach to the economy (growth comes magically from the private sector to pay for the public sector) and not expect the same results.
He still cannot articulate where the growth comes from - because he can't.
Don't rip-off faulty economic ideas from the Tories - would be a useful tip.
Daunting. What's his issue with setting a better narrative ?
Isn’t the definition of Keynesian economics stimulating growth by funding public services and infrastructure? 🤔
Also, crap transport infrastructure outside London and underinvestment in the health service (with resulting long waiting lists) are brakes on growth.
I think we’re going to end up with a Labour government next time round because people want any change rather than because they’ve a compelling/exciting offer (unlike eg. 1997).
Keir Starmer says Labour will fund our public services through growing the economy.
Liz Truss, economist extraordinare, was saying precisely that over 5 years ago:
https://www.ft.com/content/7e1239fe-3f22-11e8-b7e0-52972418fec4
"Public spending rise depends on extra growth, says Truss"
So it's great to hear that Sir Keir Starmer isn't part of the anti-growth coalition.
From a BBC article:
The party is seeking inspiration from the US President Joe Biden's vast package of support for green industries to rebuild Britain's "industrial foundations".
The Biden package seems to be working quite nicely in the USA at the moment.
People would struggle to know what Labour stood for these days. 'Growth' means make the rich richer and hope they pay their taxes, 'reform' the NHS which means increased privatisation, building 'affordable housing' by trying to make developers stick to planning gains of a few cheaper units with no mention of social housing or rent controls, brushing teeth in schools. It will be a bit of a challenge for LP members to go on the knocker proseletyzing that set of changes. OTOH Sunak banging on about stopping smoking and meat taxes set the terms of debate into the surreal.
Anyone seriously addressing the cost of living or housing crisis? Nope, thought not. They'd just like to get elected to a nice little earner.
Anyone seriously addressing the cost of living or housing crisis?
Those things are being announced as well. It's up to you if you think the plans are enough, but do read the articles.
Anyone seriously addressing the cost of living or housing crisis
Meh the majority of the electorate couldn't give a flying **** as they're alright. The last thing they want is more houses in the pool or close to where they live. Same with developers, a restricted supply keeps prices high, that's how they like it.
No one is going to **** that little gravy train up. Not to mention the lovely rental incomes!
The Biden package seems to be working quite nicely in the USA at the moment.
Yep good numbers on macro data.
Biden has pumped trillions into the economy. (Not rocket science.)
(But they do battle with government shutdowns and the self imposed debt-ceiling constantly. If the debt ceilings had got its way it might be a bit of wreck.)
It's almost as if government spending and fiscal expansion increases growth.
https://twitter.com/wbmosler/status/1710376854341775770?t=0R20ySwKUWi-ERytCo5ETA&s=19
Now for context Reeves is offering fiscal responsibility - let's imagine what that might do in light of Labour wanting to generate growth. Reeves' own advisor is basically saying its dumb to put the Osborne created OBR in front of Reeves' as a restriction. Now using the mini budget as a point of order (which was offering benefits to the wealthy).
Its totally counter intuitive and Centrist commentators yet again bleating on about the mini budget have helped ensure Tory rules constrain a Labour government.
The Biden package seems to be working quite nicely in the USA at the moment
Green-economy focused. The US has possibly the largest lithium deposit in the world, the UK has some but it isn't currently feasible to produce commercially. The US opened their first cobalt mine last year and is number 10 in the world reserve rankings, we don't feature although there are deposits in the SW, Wales and W. Scotland
Independence in semi-conductors. We have a few small players
The only thing that we can come close to is their Inflation Reduction Act (2022), which we should be doing already and aren't: Reduce carbon emissions. Increase domestic manufacturing. Improve tax-enforcement. More R&D and commercialisation of the outcome
BBC Radio 4 - Uncharted with Hannah Fry, 10. Devil in the Detail
Errors in the analysis underpinning the arguments in favour of austerity...
Is anybody else worried that whatever Kier and Co announce, even if it's policies that will transform the UK's trajectory for the better, that it won't get any decent coverage in the press? I know the war in Gaza is important but Labour have announced a few policies and you just wouldn't know looking at the papers and news websites unless you specifically went looking for them.
Even in here this thread is hardly getting any posts whereas the Rishi one is constantly at the to of the first page. This doesn't bode well.
Even in here this thread is hardly getting any posts whereas the Rishi one is constantly at the to of the first page. This doesn’t bode well.
Labour conference now so maybe the SKS thread will get a bit more traction.
Problem is, he's already writing cheques he can't cash:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67058848
That's not going to be a popular policy with the NIMBY vote and the environmental lobby. Britain is notorious for building expensive but largely crap housing anyway so it's going to need more than just a keynote speech to set this one out. And all these new towns need some sort of connection and put entire rail infrastructure has just been put back by 40 years...
Not really. If the Tories had a terrible conference, then it's fine for Labour to have a boring one. If there were any spectacular new policies then it would have been tricky if they weren't covered - but there aren't any policies like that.
The closest [Starmer] came to news was promising to ditch the Rwanda scheme...There was just time for the conference to agree to not debate Brexit – so much better to avoid division – and that was about it. Much of the day had understandably been overshadowed by events in Israel. But that almost suited Labour. They plan to take power. Not with a bang but by osmosis. To slide under the radar without the Tories noticing. So far, so good.
Even in here this thread is hardly getting any posts whereas the Rishi one is constantly at the to of the first page. This doesn’t bode well.
is rather have dull politics with a whiff of honesty than exciting politics that bleed the county and its populous dry to fund the Tory elite. <br /><br />The problem is, we all like sensationalist TV.
Is anybody else worried that whatever Kier and Co announce, even if it’s policies that will transform the UK’s trajectory for the better, that it won’t get any decent coverage in the press? I know the war in Gaza is important but Labour have announced a few policies and you just wouldn’t know looking at the papers and news websites unless you specifically went looking for them.
In some ways it's a benefit the Tory party conference went badly, if Labour receive less attention due to events in the middleast then it might not be such a terrible thing for them.
That’s not going to be a popular policy with the NIMBY vote and the environmental lobby. Britain is notorious for building expensive but largely crap housing anyway so it’s going to need more than just a keynote speech to set this one out. And all these new towns need some sort of connection and put entire rail infrastructure has just been put back by 40 years…
Perhaps, but I think he struck a note of hope about renewal and economic activity (ideally leading to that all important 'growth') set against the Tories who were just listing things they're against (some of which are largely imaginary) and extending austerity with more cuts to infrastructure investment...
The overall Labour message was arguably quieter but more positive. The proof is in the pudding of course so we'll see what SKS and co. actually do. We had wild promises from the last Tory anyone actually voted into No.10 and much of that has evaporated. Maybe the nation needs a stint of 'boring' government...
rather have dull politics with a whiff of honesty
The whiff of SKS certainly isn't honesty.
I think there is a fair proportion of the population who realise that building more houses is a good idea, especially the young vote & their parents & grandparents. Less sure about keeping that all in the private domain though 🤔
From a practical perspective I think the house building policy - whilst being well intentioned - will be undeliverable as there are nowhere near enough tradespeople to support the target.
Skilled European workers returned to their home countries in the immediate post Brexit period and there would need to be significant concessions and incentives to lure them back.
Modular would (possibly) mitigate some of the problems but the manufacturing base would need to be massively expanded - and bear in mind that a number of modular companies have closed over the 12 - 18 months.
If modular, the designs would be very much cookie cutter and I don't know if that's what anyone wants.
Then factor in the infrastructure requirements, councils who will look to extort massive S106 contributions from developers, Nimby-ism, planning systems not fit for purpose, developers always looking to water down the affordable housing commitments in their contracts.
Is the public sector capable of managing the scale of housing development as promised by Starter? IMO - no.
Frank that's a valid point. I'm trade and currently booking into 2025. If I turn potential customers away with a couple of recommendations, I can almost guarantee they'll be calling me again in 6 months time as they just can't get anyone
https://www.ft.com/content/ff8229de-4b40-41c8-96d3-b0bc38ef8aca
"Labour has steadily trimmed the policy over concerns among leader Sir Keir Starmer’s team about Conservative criticism...."
So despite the Tories, having absolutely no credibility, being electorally on their knees, and awaiting a wipe out at the next general election, they are still setting the agenda and calling the shots.
More backtracking:
"In June, Labour said it would aim to reach that level by the middle of a five-year term in office, the first dilution of what had previously been a more immediate commitment."
And Labour are now using the well-established and dishonest Tory tactic of repackaging old money as new:
"The party figures added that the £28bn commitment now included existing government capital spending on green schemes, which experts said was currently around £8bn a year."
The Tories aren’t calling the shots. Labour’s policies go way beyond the Tories, but being realistic about what can be achieved in the first few years of a Labour government will be essential to avoid gifting the Tory party a way back into power by pointing at late delivery on manifestos commitments. There’s a lot of **** to get clearing up.
but being realistic about what can be achieved in the first few years of a Labour government
Why weren't they being realistic about what could be achieved in the first few years of a Labour government 6 months?
Why the need to backtrack on so many of the very few policy announcements which Labour have made?
And why does the FT talk of concerns among Sir Keir Starmer’s team about Conservative criticism? It's not true?