Forum menu
I’d put money on this election having the highest turnout in history.
Voters are sick of this lot, but are more realistic about how long it's going to take to clear up their mess than some on here. Anyone expecting unicorns and rainbows in the first few years of a possible Labour administration is being utterly unrealistic. Over promising wouldn't be believed by most, and would deepen mistrust in government by everyone else once the reality of the task ahead destroys such promises as sure as day turns to night. The circumstances the UK finds itself in, not least because of a series of decisions our government (with "our" support) has taken since 2008, is pretty dire. Some people can't see how deep the hole is yet... or how much worse it could still get for years to come. The next election is about slowing the decline at first, before we even get to a situation where things improve. All very depressing. Fantasy politics might feel like "hope" to those peddling it... but it will turn people away from Labour if they embrace it, both before and after the next election. We need rid of the Tories... but it won't be like Bobby in Dallas the day after they lose the election, which I hope they do... it won't be day zero where we can ignore or reverse everything they have been put in motion. And that's looking at things now... god knows what further salting of the earth they might carry up between now an election. Nothing's off the table for them as the desperation sets in... 😔
And that’s looking at things now… god knows what further salting of the earth they might carry up between now an election. Nothing’s off the table for them as the desperation sets in… 😔
They'll do almost nothing in the runup to the next election. All it's going to be is more pointless culture war virtue (or rather the opposite) signalling about immigration and net zero.
Also can you see Sunak running a good campaign? Given his propensity to patronise people and his petulant response to difficult questions it'll be Theresa May all over again.
Voters are sick of this lot, but are more realistic about how long it’s going to take to clear up their mess than some on here.
Who are these people exactly? Outside of your need to feel superior and excuse support for someone who is offering little.
I dont think anyone is underestimating the size of the problem but just disagreeing with the idea that keeping doing what the tories are doing but more competently isnt going to solve things.
You seem to be wanting to repeat the same mistakes made in 1997 by agreeing to keep policies the tories themselves admitted they werent going to keep to.
If all you do is slow the damage then in 2029 what do you think is going to happen when the hard right tories promise the world as they always do and the voters look at the failure of Starmerites to provide an alternative?
They’ll do almost nothing in the runup to the next election.
I hope you're right. I fear you are wrong, especially on health, care, education, transport... and trading conditions for SMEs... retail, manufacturing and services...
Outside of your need to feel superior
**** off.
They’ll do almost nothing in the runup to the next election
They have done so to some degree. For example the horrendous disability assessors companies have been given contracts of up to eight years recently so even if Starmer does decide to break from hard right politics it will cost a fortune to pay them off early.
Cooper and streeting are thoroughly corrupt. Can’t stand either of them
Genuine question TJ, why do you believe Yvette Cooper is corrupt? She’s perhaps bland in the same vein that a lot of European politicians come across as bland, but she’s always struck me as one of the more competent MPs. A view possibly shared by her constituents who, despite her being a relatively vocal Remainer in a predominantly Leave constituency, still voted for her in the general election.
MIldred - her unrepentant behaviour over the expenses scandal. Her and Balls absolutely took the piss and became rich off expenses - flipping which property was their primary residence numerous times so they could renovate 3 houses on expenses and never even apologised. she was one of the worst for doing so. its all about the money for her. she also takes donations that look suspcious although not at the levels some tories do<br /><br />I simply do not trust her at all. Snout firmly in trough
If we were to refer to investment rather than spending I suspect that arguments about money supply would be somewhat muted
Absolutely. And here’s an independent look at some of the additional (arguably the key) investment proposed by Labour:
https://ifs.org.uk/articles/look-under-hood-labours-investment-plans
And “spending” increases that aren’t capital investment are also proposed, but so are tax changes to pair with them.
Labour are proposing investing more.
Labour are proposing spending more.
What they aren’t doing is making open ended day to day spending commitments without additional revenue. Yes, yes, MMT, but that isn’t a good first step towards restoring trust in the UK again (be that internally or as regards the view from outside the UK). Something far more boring has to happen in the next parliament, run away inflation and/or devaluation isn’t a risk we can take. But more investment and spending is planned, if Labour wins. Don’t let the talk of “living within our means” in day to day spending lead you towards believing the Tories and Labour are proposing the same plan for the next 5 to 10 years. They are not.
After an admittedly half arsed, I’m in the middle of other stuff, google search it appears that she over claimed by circa £1300, which she repaid & also paid capital gains on her house moves, without any prompting.
So in the grand scheme of things, and definitely relatively speaking (for MPs), is this corrupt? For crazy expenses see Barbara Follet’s £42k repayment or Derek Conway paying his sons £14k as researchers.
I personally cannot see why any MP needs the expenses allowance they receive; it seems to elevate them from public servants, for which they receive a good wage, to positions of outright privilege.
Im only going from memory but you have to add in Ed Balls as well. they had 3 houses between them, flipped which was the primary residence several times, paid for all 3 renovations from expenses and two of the houses mortgages<br /><br />Nothing illegal which is why she didn't have to pay much back. But certainly snouts in the trough big time. completely unrepentant as well. Her and Balls became millionaires off this action
also look into the donations both received - plenty of conflict of interest.
Don’t let the talk of “living within our means” in day to day spending lead you towards believing the Tories and Labour are proposing the same plan for the next 5 to 10 years.
The name of the game in politics ATM is pretending you're not going to spend any money whilst figuring out ways of doing so without anyone noticing. It's pretty stupid but here we are, this is where the national finances as a credit card narrative leads. 🤷♂️
Spending/investment/borrowing/money printing (whatever you want to call it) will increase for no other reason than it is required. The alternative is further decline and labour being voted out in 2028/9. Voters expect labour govts to spend more, if they don't they won't last long.
kelvin
Full Member**** off.
You don't mind dishing it out with contemptuous and dismissive talk of "unicorns and rainbows" but you don't like being on the recieving end, do you? Typical centrist!
So anyway where are the "unicorns and rainbows" in these ten commitments?
https://www.indy100.com/politics/keir-starmer-labour-leadership-pledges-2666421303
Aren't they committed to renationalising rail as the contracts expire? I don't know how long that will take but it's at least one example of spending with benefit to the public, with some degree of softening for swing voters.
I suspect that starmer's main stream media rhetoric is somewhat at odds with the manifesto labour will present. But the question will be whether his rhetoric will ruin any trust in the manifesto being enacted.
I worry the danger of it all is that safe seats have the vote split towards greens leaving opportunities for the Tories. I think he's taking it too far; praising Thatcher was completely unnecessary to get his point across
I think he’s taking it too far; praising Thatcher was completely unnecessary to get his point across
It's more than just public rhetoric praising Thatcher - quietly behind the scenes Starmer has acted to stamp out any criticism of the woman he says he admires :
"Sir Keir Starmer’s top team prevented a shadow minister from criticising Margaret Thatcher"
Remember the ridicule that Liz Truss received on stw, and elsewhere, for declaring her admiration for Thatcher?
It turns out that the centrists don't mind if Starmer does the same!
Aren’t they committed to renationalising rail as the contracts expire?
Not as far as I am aware. One of his ten pledges was state ownership of railways IIRC but since rowed back on
mebies aye mebbis naw on that one. Depends how much the rail companies bribe them as most of the shadow front bench are bought for pennies and are there with their hands out
The Tories have been quietly re-nationalising the railways for a while now, because frankly they had no choice.
Starmer is still not backing rail nationalisation because the Tories have not publicly declared that it is their policy.
Yes, yes, MMT, but that isn’t a good first step towards restoring trust in the UK again (be that internally or as regards the view from outside the UK)
Because talking up the fabrication of fiscal rules is a good way of gaining trust?
Fiscal rules are made up and self-imposed, with no modelling at all.
If that's a good way of changing the narrative and making things better then we're not on the same page.
All that's happening is the Labour party are prolonging the agony with this line.
The Tories will attack them irrespective.
A few bits of economic truth:
1) fiscal rules are a fabrication. There's nothing behind it other than to pretend the government is a household. It's not. It can't be - the government has its own bank.
2) The government can't save for a rainy day - see the Tories pretend they create fiscal space every now and again whilst at the same time talking up an apparent out of control 'debt'. Government's don't save money in a pot. There is no fiscal operation at the BoE to allow for this. Money is either created (spending) or destroyed (taxation). It's not saved.
3) Government 'debt' is a private sector reserve drain. So the government spends new money on public services through the commercial bank system and it matches the spending with 'borrowing' or debt issuance that is to effectively take money out of the private sector to match the new spending. (This goes back to gold standard operations. And is entirely optional in a Fiat system.) The government can always meet its obligations to pay it back.
This system is a swap of reserves (base money or previous government spending in the private sector for bonds, interest bearing money. Bonds are more or less the same as money as far as the government's books are concerned. Bonds are interest bearing and give the private sector a safe place to put money.
But they don't fund spending.
So what are fiscal rules for other than to perpetuate a myth?
A Tory myth.
Sorry that was coffee fuelled off topic-ness.
Anyway in my point - fiscal rules are now a way to gain trust of the public by pretending you can't fix massive Tory inflicted problems that affect all of us - by misrepresenting (at best) government finances?
But remember, Starmer is all about being honest to the public - I heard him say it just a couple of days ago.
Most people realise the country is in a state (with recent reports only highlighting that), Starmer coming out and saying we are investing in lots of things to make it better for everyone and explaining that will not directly impact them in monetary terms is simple enough isn't it.
The Tories have been quietly re-nationalising the railways for a while now, because frankly they had no choice.
Nah they have been keeping with the core tory principle of privatise profits and socialise losses.
The ones under direct state control are only there until the public sector can sort out the mess and then it will be handed back to be run by the private sector on a nicely profitable basis.
and then it will be handed back to be run by the private sector
That's what the Tories keep saying, and what they want you to believe, but in reality nationalisation of the railways has been advancing ever since Railtrack was nationalised.
How the Tories nationalised almost half of Britain’s railway network by stealth
"The Transport Secretary insisted that the nationalisation of the Transpennine Express was “temporary”.
The pledge was treated with incredulity by the train industry, who have seen nothing but a growing state influence in the sector in recent years.
Approaching half of Britain’s trains are now directly run by the state following the nationalisation of Transpennine Express, according to analysis of official statistics by this newspaper."
Quoted from the indy today:
Sir Keir Starmer would be welcomed into the Conservative Party with “open arms”, Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg has said.
The top Tory and arch-Brexiteer said the Labour leader’s recent article in the Telegraph, in which Sir Keir praised Margaret Thatcher, sounded like a Conservative minister launching a leadership bid.
Sir Keir’s article, under the headline “voters have been betrayed on Brexit and immigration”, read like something by “the most ardent of Eurosceptics” or a “Trussite”, Sir Jacob added.
He added: “As a Tory member, I would like to extend a welcome to the Leader of the Opposition with open arms.”
“voters have been betrayed on Brexit and immigration”, read like something by “the most ardent of Eurosceptics” or a “Trussite”
TBH I missed a trick when I posted that headline on this thread a couple of days ago.
What I should have done is posted the "voters have been betrayed on Brexit and immigration" quote on the Suella Braverman or Liz Truss threads without attributing it to Starmer.
And then sat back as the centrists queued up to denounce Braverman or Truss for being batshit/deluded/pandering to elderly senile Home Counties racists.
Correctly attributing it to Starmer simply resulted in deafening silence from the Tory-hating centrists.
Correctly attributing it to Starmer simply resulted in deafening silence from the Tory-hating centrists.
Too busy justifying his Thatcher commentary.
https://twitter.com/RachelReevesMP/status/1733033290951454783?t=Med583Z4yvwQ3oEdwijCLg&s=19
The city only adds value to itself.
Labour seem to have a massive problem at spotting the country's actual problems.
We don't need more city endorsement, we need investment in tangibles outside of London.
FFS Labour simply have to invest in the country with public money. There's a crumbling world out there to fix and deploy resources to.
1 term Labour promising more conservatism aka more things that go wrong.
So it turns out that Keir Starmer has a much more hostile opinion of Margaret Thatcher when he is in the company of Labour supporters in Glasgow, compared to when he is expressing his admiration for her to Sunday Telegraph readers. He really is full of shit!
"Now Keir Starmer says Margaret Thatcher did ‘terrible things’, days after piling praise on the former PM"
I find this bit intriguing:
he said: “The point I was trying to make in a piece that we penned last week is that ......
Who is "we" in a piece that "we penned"? Is he using the royal "we", as Thatcher in her arrogance was known to do, or is he letting slip that Morgan McSweeney writes all his stuff for him?
So it turns out that Keir Starmer has a much more hostile opinion of Margaret Thatcher when he is in the company of Labour supporters in Glasgow,
I particularly enjoyed the hostile reception that Starmer received at Glasgow Central station
You could praise Thatcher (as you could Hitler) for getting things done and bringing about change. Clearly the things they got done, how they did them and the impact of them is not so great!
But how or why would any Labour leader ever bring up the subject of Thatcher in anything but a completely negative way.
But how or why would any Labour leader ever bring up the subject of Thatcher in anything but a completely negative way.
And especially the working class's general hatred of her. It's a total home goal.
The kind of people that believe Thatcher to be genius are simply people that have been lucky with money and life, and have no understanding how the economy is stacked up against us - and how it could be so much better.
I mean concentrating state wealth into assets for a few people is hardly the miracle job that is portrayed in support of Thatcherism.
And especially the working class’s general hatred of her. It’s a total home goal.
If Sir Keir Starmer believes that the 'Mandelson Rule' still applies he undoubtedly won't see it as an own goal:
"Your preoccupation with the working-class vote is wrong. They’ve got nowhere to go” - Peter Mandelson to Peter Hain, 1999
Although Red Wall 2019 should have challenged the theory that Labour can ignore working-class and still take their votes for granted.
It was something he didn't really need to say though. Like a lot of his stupid robot comments.
As for the working class they can both hate Thatcher and still be coaxed into talking up the right - mostly because the left haven't done enough for them.
It is not just the working class vote though, people who used to support Labour (pre Starmer) and those switching to Labour now would on the whole hate everything about Thatcher I would guess.
People who appreciate what Thatcher did are already going to be voting Tory whatever crap Starmer comes out with.
True, Kerley - I'm speaking very much from my locality (Wallers).
And especially the working class’s general hatred of her. It’s a total home goal.
Plenty of working class people voted for her, she wouldn't have won otherwise.
It was something he didn’t really need to say though.
No doubt Starmer and his advisors would disagree, I am sure that they see it as an important part of their strategy.
Gordon Brown didn't "have" to invite Margaret Thatcher to Downing Street for tea and yet that was precisely he did as soon as he became Prime Minister:
Thatcher visits Brown for tea at No 10
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/sep/13/politicalnews.uk
The purpose? Well it wasn't to woo Tory voters for a general election which was still 3 years away. His main concern was to send out a very clear message that no one, particularly in the Labour Party, should expect a change in direction following Tony Blair's resignation.
Inviting Thatcher for tea did precisely that. Remember Thatcher herself claimed that the creation of New Labour was her greatest success.
Remember also that the right-wing within the Labour Party aren't simply engaged in a battle against the Tories, ever since Blair became leader they have been engaged in a battle against the left.
Politics involves psychological warfare as much as anything else. Declaring admiration for Thatcher helps to lower the morale and expectations of those who are hoping for a change of direction.
Labour under Keir Starmer has already declared that no hope is better than what they claim to be false hope. It is very important to them to practically destroy all hope. And Starmer has been doing an excellent job of that. Praising Thatcher is part of it.
Plenty of working class people voted for her, she wouldn’t have won otherwise
Fair point. But I'm surmising she's hated by more working class types currently - than middle and upper. And this is a reflection of things now rather than when people voted at the time.
I suppose this is the danger of grouping people anecdotally by class. It's all a bit mixed up these days.
she’s hated by more working class types currently
As she was during her premiership. The so-called "Red Wall" remained solidly Labour throughout the time she was Prime Minister.
Thatcher was actually more successful getting young people to vote Tory, in terms of demographics.
Either way my hatred of her is both rational and irrational!
I remember my dad at the time (a miner who suffered a life changing injury at the pit.) And watching him doing two jobs and many hours - whilst all my other mate's parents were all enjoying their short term bonus British Telecom / Gas cheques.
Something about that era never squared with me as a I realised some people just came into money without any hard work at all - when in fact the thing we all owned (and built up by) was being sold off to a lucky few.
But, we were the Labour voters and they were the Tory supporters. That injustice has only gotten worse, hence my absolute disdain for Conservative values - mostly parasitic, with the love the false wealth creation of arguments the City.
No way can I sit by and watch Starmer "phone-in" these values knowing what I know now.
To me that looks like an obvious political move rather than an economic one
But given the state of the nation don't you think those politics are perhaps a bit cock-eyed these days?
I haven't seen a chart on the perception of the City recently but we all know the politics of supporting water nationalisation is pretty popular? So why not go the progressive route? Better optics - much better outcomes
It's only seems to be the likes of Farage and Tice singing the Cities financial praises these days.
I'm not so sure, plenty of people working in education, healthcare, local government and the civil service would be notionally 'middle class' and have great disdain for Thatcherite values. Whereas I've come across a number of self-employed builder types who imagine Tory values are about supporting people 'who want to get on' and not spongers etc. Many white collar jobs have been proletarianised and that process continues. People who sell their labour power are the working class whether they realise it or not.
Just another thought too Molgrips it was the last Labour government that had to bail out the banking system - during the GFC.
Seriously short memories from them. 140bn of public money - and of course it was a sensible move but the slap on the wrist and toxic outcomes have been sidelined.
I'm surprised (or not) that doesn't get reflected on when Reeves is talking up City finances.
Whereas I’ve come across a number of self-employed builder types who imagine Tory values are about supporting people ‘who want to get on’ and not spongers etc
Yes I've come across that too.
I still maintain that's the left not doing its job properly rather than the right doing a really good job of anything. Easy to bang on about spongers, ****less.
(And all the headwinds that come with communist broadband.)
A change in narrative is what's needed.
It's funny how a the UK owning its own utilities is considered a bad thing rather than the lack of tangible patriotism the market has delivered.
Think we can all stop worrying, it turns out Starmer is a "red-green" radicalist who has managed to position himself in the heart of the establishment so he can bring about a Trotskyite revolution.
So why not go the progressive route? Better optics – much better outcomes
Well yes and I agree in theory but on the other hand, the polls are hard to ignore. They are currently as good as it's possible to be and from that standpoint it's hard to argue for a change in tactics.
I didn't read beyond the headline:
PETER HITCHENS: Revolutionary past that gives the lie to the notion Keir Starmer is a harmless moderate
As a public school educated revolutionary, Peter Hitchens's "revolutionary past" includes being a member of an ultra-leftist Trotskyite organisation.
Which might or might not explain why Peter Hitchens is not a harmless moderate.
They are currently as good as it’s possible to be and from that standpoint it’s hard to argue for a change in tactics.
If the polls are as good as it is possible to be why is Sir Keir Starmer moving the Labour Party evermore to the right with each passing week?
His declared admiration for Thatcher is just the latest.
I think Starmers only concern is getting the top job, he will say whatever he thinks people want to hear.
Good question. If the Tories are so unpopular why is he emulating them?
I think he did a deal some years ago with his big business sponsors about who would be allowed in the shadow cabinet, what they would have to sign up to, who would operate his IT monitoring and control of the party, who would be expelled, what his foreign policy views would be etc. His contradictory statements and sometimes look of terror would suggest he's not his own man. It's difficult to see it any other way.
If the polls are as good as it is possible to be why is Sir Keir Starmer moving the Labour Party evermore to the right with each passing week?
His declared admiration for Thatcher is just the latest.
This and this.
It's not his tactics that are superior - it's the backdrop of a failed state and current government.
He could easily offer some progressive cookies and still do okay. Who knows he might pick up my vote?
Good question. If the Tories are so unpopular why is he emulating them
For sure - Centrists spend all their time hating on Tories yet put all their eggs in a Starmer shaped Conservative basket.
Because - personality!
Technocrat bore is apparently the way to go; and somehow is seen as a competent way of delivering the same Tory programme.
Country needs and deserves more.
His declared admiration for Thatcher is just the latest.
I think you're overstating that. Perhaps.in purpose to give yourself yet more ammo against Starmer when it's not really necessary.
That kind of insinuation in place of actual debate is an enormously damaging aspect of politics and it drives me up the wall.
That kind of insinuation in place of actual debate is an enormously damaging aspect of politics and it drives me up the wall.
Oh poor you. Try to deal with it though as Starmer's praise for Margaret Thatcher has been widely been interpreted in the media as admiration.
The Tories have certainly used his comments as such:
Downing Street has insisted Rishi Sunak is not worried about Sir Keir Starmer's new found admiration of Margaret Thatcher, saying the Labour leader is not "fit to lace Baroness Thatcher's boots".
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-67640828
The barrister with famed 'forensic skills' should be perhaps be more careful in the words he uses if the point his trying to make is lost on everyone (it no doubt wasn't lost on Telegraph readers)
in place of actual debate
Go on then - debate it. Don't let me stop you. I am fascinated to hear why you think a Labour Party leader "praising" Thatcher is such a great idea.
Hang on - it's perhaps on Starmer to not bring this up? It's not really needed is it?
We on the left are bound to react in this way. And we don't want to hear the architect of handing over the state to the few called meaningful change. Or this toss about boosting entrepreneurialism!
If you sold off your neighbours assets for knock down prices is that entrepreneurship?
He's supposed to be on the left.
This whole pretence that Thatcher was anything other than a thief of State resources at the expense of inequality, knockdown sell-offs and wealth concentration - is ridiculous.
At some point the state will need to refill its boots so Capitalism can thrive again. It's a magic show.
A tip for you Starmer - just don't bring it up. Leave it at your advisors door.
Starmer also neatly sidesteps many massive innovations come from the state and companies merely package the tech.
Look - it's great to have a thriving private sector, but that's not what we've actually ended up with.
We on the left are bound to react in this way.
In what way? I for one welcome the fact Starmer feels the need to publicly "praise" Thatcher in the Telegraph.
It should at least make it less ambiguous as to where he stands politically. Which is, whatever your political views he pretty much agrees with them.
The supreme irony is that Starmer was actually using Thatcher as an example of a 'conviction politician' in an attempt to suggest that he is also a 'conviction politician'. Which is of course laughable.
I am fascinated to hear why you think a Labour Party leader “praising” Thatcher is such a great idea.
See, this is why I dislike your contributions here Ernie. You seem to want to polarise everything. No I know you understand nuance but for some reason you come.out with crap like this just to start a row. Life is better when you don't do this, trust me.
Hang on – it’s perhaps on Starmer to not bring this up? It’s not really needed is it?
Indeed. I think it's a pretty daft thing to say since reactions like Ernie's should have been anticipated. But again, perhaps they did the calculus and they thought making centrist comments would gain them more votes than it would lose.
See, this is why I dislike your contributions here Ernie.
Yeah I get that you don't like my contributions molgrips, God only knows you mention it often enough, it's clearly an obsession of yours. But how about not focusing on your personal feud with me and discussing Starmer instead? I'm loving the irony of you claiming that I want to start a row btw!
So instead of engaging in pointless pedantics concerning whether Starmer was admiring Thatcher or praising her, in an apparent desperate attempt to start an argument, how about explaining why you believe "it's a pretty daft thing to say", beyond the disapproving reaction of some geezer on a MTB forum?
For the record I do actually admire the commitment that Thatcher had to the super wealthy class which she married into, it was unflinching. And I only wish that we had Labour leaders with that same level of commitment.
But that's where my admiration for Thatcher ends, I certainly wouldn't want to praise her in any way at all, as Starmer felt able to do, according to you - I believe you are willing to accept that Starmer "praised" Thatcher?
Edit: And in reference to this:
You seem to want to polarise everything.
I absolutely polarise everything. I oppose Tory policies whether they are espoused by Conservative politicians or Labour politicians. I don't support Tory policies simply because they have been repackaged by Labour. But I will support Starmer when I believe he is right, eg, I very much supported Starmer's 10 pledges and I currently support his position on Brexit.
I reckon you might agree with some of the points raised in this editorial rone:
"British governments are unusually free to overhaul the country’s economy, but electoral support is the crucial precondition for such changes."
And
"Politicians know they can’t win an argument without making it".
Just had a quick run through that.
The whole thing about this 28bn is its now become a figure to be challenged on.
The Tories have seized it. Which has caused Starmer to shit himself as usual.
Originally the argument was about 'Pay-fors' - we will tax non-doms , green wealth funds etc, this always leads to trouble.
28bn is nothing. And nowhere near enough to be transformative anyway - but it's a start. Just appears to me no one actually wants to do anything- like the article says make the arguments.
As one of the comments says Thatcherite dogma is in the way of common sense. Until this changes we are boxed in.
The correct narrative is - do we need to do, can we do it and do we have the resources to do it? But Labour made such a noise about unfunded tax cuts that they're now stuck with this problem. You see the Truss budget has backfired on just about everyone, not because she was daft but because everyone is terrified of the market position when it comes to spending, and it shouldn't be that way around in a democracy. Absolute lack of understanding.
(Just looking at growth for a moment - Labour ought to look to the USA- they're killing it with macro numbers because of all the damn money they've spent. (GDP Q3 5% ) This has all happened in a high interest environment, smacking monetarist views that high interest rates dampen growth. Well, MMT proponents pointed out that the evidence was it added interest income to the economy, and fuelling it. So was doing the opposite to the neoclassical view.)
Oh, and going for independent green energy production should be in everyone's face if we want anything like a strong economy with little inflation, and be free from troubling geopolitical concerns.
Should be an easy sell to the centre/right that one. Just mention Putin and create turbines with UK flags on.
Nowhere near rocket science.
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1733844858400333996?s=20
Liz Kendell has always been a right-wing robot.
Liz Kendall says that Labour want to make it harder for people in lower paid jobs to live with their foreign partner in the UK
I assumed that was an exaggeration but according to the clip that is exactly what she is saying, ie, people on lower income should not be allowed to bring their partners into the UK.
I really need to stop being surprised from the things that people who claim to be Labour politicians say these days.
I still expect them to say different things to Tory politicians, God only knows why.
And just to make clear what this policy actually means :
Observers have commented the rules are a de facto ban on Brits marrying foreign nationals, with 73% of the population unable to meet the income threshold.
This is a good example of why Labour is sometimes actually worse than the Tories - they can get away doing things which the Tories would have much more trouble doing.
If this policy was posted on the Rishi Sunak thread it would be met with an avalanche of criticism with accusations that it was desperate attempt to appeal to stupid senile old racist Brexiteers.
But because this policy is apparently backed by Starmer it receives no comment.
But because this policy is apparently backed by Starmer it receives no comment
Because it hard to defend. Why bother ? Easier to screech about the Tories all day long.
It pains me a thousand times more that my "team" are an embarrassing Tory tribute act - way more than the official article (because I expect it from them.)
When Starmer comes to power the Centrists will no longer be able to police Sunak only type threads and will have to deal with the critique in hand.
It will be at least interesting.
And actually there is a bit of me that wants to be wrong about Starmer - several Centrist friends insist he will swing left when in power but that doesn't really ever happend, and he's gone further to the right.
I'm sure they will give him an easy time either way.
Meh, every time i read something it's misquoted, such as the labour stance on immigration, they are not putting a monetary limit on it like the tories have, they say it needs to be reviewed, but as they're not in power, or even close to putting legislation like that on the table, it's just rhetorics on current affairs by the opposition party.
As for 'centrist' stuff, do people on here really believe the UK will shift way left in one election, i'm struggling to note anything seismic that has been done in the last 40 years through the tories 18 years of Thatcher, new labours 13 years and now the tory debacle we've had over the last 13 years, the only time we saw someone try to make huge changes it sank the country and she and her cohort were out on their ear in record time!
every time i read something it’s misquoted, such as the labour stance on immigration
No one quoted anyone. It was a link to a video clip.
There was no need to quote Liz Kendall because her spoken answer to a very specific question could clearly be heard https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1733844858400333996?s=20
No I didn't like what I heard either agree but unlike you I am not going to pretend that I didn't hear it.
I heard her clearly, she is talking of an increase, not in line with the tories, but against the evidence that would be provided via the Migration Advisory Committee, who i believe are the experts in this area.
What the increase is i have no clue, neither does labour by the sounds of it, and rightly so if they've not actually liaised with the experts on the matter, again, politics being politics, this may be something or nothing, it might be a push to the MAC assessment being way less than 38k, haven't a clue, or something else, no clue, but i am not hearing her backing the tory assessment either, unless i add lots of assumptions and bias in there.
I heard her clearly, she is talking of an increase
Exactly. So where is the "misquote"??
Liz Kendall very clearly agrees with the Tories that the threshold is too low and she wants it increased to reduce immigration.
The fact that she won't, very typically, commit herself to a specific figure does not mean that Labour are opposed to the policy. It still means that they support it.
A policy which will deny British people on lower incomes the legal right to live with their foreign partners.
A clear class-based and bigoted-fueled injustice which you should not expect from a political party which calls itself "The Labour Party".
And actually there is a bit of me that wants to be wrong about Starmer – several Centrist friends insist he will swing left when in power but that doesn’t really ever happend, and he’s gone further to the right.
That is all we can hope for as he is clearly the only chance we have of not having the tory party any longer. What/who is going to make him swing left though?
Is he (and his cabinet) dishonest enough to say a whole load of things during election campaign and then do the opposite once in power?
What/who is going to make him swing left though?
The voters. By not voting for people who spout Tory policies.
Vote for people who don't spout Tory policies.
Vote for people who don’t spout Tory policies.
But as has been pointed out on numerous occaisions there arent that many people in that camp that wont already be voting Labour. For Labour to get into power they need large numbers of middle ground Tories to swell the Labour vote and reduce the Tory vote. Nicking votes from the Lib dems or Greens is not going to do the pattern and won't make a lot of impact on the former.
People in this country as a whole are centre right. You can only work with what you've got and much as it may upset all the class warriors on here you're pretty irrelevant electorally, Starmer doesn't need your tiny number of votes and moving leftward to try and pick them up would lose a lot more from the centre..
If the polls are to be believed he's getting it right, or at the very least not getting it wrong and long may it continue. You may not like Starmer but at least he's not talking about taking us out of international human rights treaties. Again I know the resident lefties don't accept this but Starmer and Labour are not the Tories, they may not be the left wing socialist party you want but unfortunately for you not many other people seem drawn to that set of political ideals either. If they were I'd expect a left wing disruptor party to be out dragging Labour leftwards in the same way UKIP dragged the Tories to the right and into loony land.
I don't believe that most people are centre right, IMO if you canvased peoples positions on individual policy matters then aggregated the results into a general political position it would be quite far left of the current offerings by the main political parties.
I also don't believe that chasing the mythical centre is the only option for winning an election, it just grows the ignored and disenfranchised section of society that actually outnumber the "centrist swing voters".
It is the marketing of hate and blame culture that swings the electorate towards the right in elections, if labour realy want to break that cycle they need to continually make positive arguments against it over multiple election cycles, and have policies that actually improve the lives of the majority, just being a less bad Tories continuing to run the economy for the minority benefit, is only going to work when the Tories implode as they are now.
People in this country as a whole are centre right.
And is drifting ever further rightward to the point where Starmer is a poor man's Cameron tribute act.
And that drift is being caused by people refusing to vote Tory because the Tories aren't rightwing/batshit crazy enough. This drags the Tories right, which drags Labour right, which drags the whole country right.
Voting Labour just shows them that they are on the right track and should continue moving right.
The current incarnation of Labour is just the Tories of 10 years ago before they were taken over by UKIP. 10 years ago there were plenty of Tory voters on here so Labour is the natural home for them.
Don't try to tell the rest of us that voting for this Labour government is in any way in our interests, any more than voting Tory was in our interests 10 years ago.
You can write UKIP/Reform off all you want but they are the single most influential political party/movement of this century. You can either accept that and look at how they achieved this or you can say, 'Well, the UK is just a right wing country now so let's make the best of it, eh?'
I don’t believe that most people are centre right, IMO if you canvased peoples positions on individual policy matters then aggregated the results into a general political position it would be quite far left of the current offerings by the main political parties.
There's always been that thinking, but reality is that we've been under a tory government for over a decade and suffered Brexit, it's also worth remembering that we're probably the most liberal we've ever been in the UK these days, we focus on the negatives a lot, but we continue to change with the times in the main.
Economically it's a complete mess though, centre left is easy to sell, but hard to put in place due to years of neglect, contractual nightmares and so on, same with benefits, immigration is the big talking point just now, but it's being replicated everywhere just now, in the EU it's a huge issue, with a lot of countries going more right than the UK just now, and it's spreading.
You really are in a fantasy land if you think a big portion of Labour voters are going to vote Green (the only actual left wing party with any number of candidates). For various reasons people mostly pick from the two ‘main’ parties.
The Greens suffer from the fact they've never held any power, so can promise lots, without having to worry about delivering. It reminds me of the Lib Dems, they could provide policies and manifesto's that were brilliant, but the minute they actually got any power, it destroyed the party, because they had to partially govern within the bounds of government, they've never recovered from this.
I heard her clearly, she is talking of an increase, not in line with the tories, but against the evidence that would be provided via the Migration Advisory Committee, who i believe are the experts in this area.
Just general observation, and I don't mean to be rude but every time someone says Starmer is not going to do that it must be a misquote/misrepresentation etc, he usually ends up going far worse than expected for the Centrists. Then they shift their narrative further right too. Just follow the start of this thread!
There is right-shifting track here as long as my arm (but not as long as the Tory outrage threads )of Starmer firming up the move to the right every time someone makes an risible excuse for a watering down of possible progressive policy.
Brexit, climate, migration, utilities, spending have all followed a path a Tory would be proud of.
What gives? When will said person wake up about his obvious trajectory?