Forum menu
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).
Well, if no one ever challenges the idea that there is such a thing as a 'wasted' vote then that will always be true.
What we have seen from UKIP/Reform is that there is no such thing as a wasted vote. Even if you are not voting for a team to win, you are voting to register your opinion. If enough people share your opinion and share their opinion by voting for a party that actually represents their view to a reasonable extent then things will change because the parties you didn't vote for will start chasing your vote.
The only way to waste your vote is to vote for a party you fundamentally don't agree with, purely because you you view politics as a football game where who wins matters.
It doesn't matter who wins. What matters is who is driving the direction of the country.
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
Totally this.
Encapsulating lousy logic for delivering more status-quo failure.
The narrative has to be changed, and it's lazy thinking that has got Labour to this point.
Courting the centre with right-leaning policies is just more of the same crap.
Make stronger arguments - people will get behind them.
There are loads for crying out loud.
Make no mistake - the centre is now the right. That's what's happened with the lack of arguments and letting establishment/markets call the shots.
If that's a good route to follow then people aren't paying attention at all.
Well, if no one ever challenges the idea that there is such a thing as a ‘wasted’ vote then that will always be true.
You believe there's no such thing as a wasted vote under first past the post? It would be lovely were it so.
There is right-shifting track here as long as my are
So are you shifting right? Or does it not work on you just on what you're calling centrists who need to "wake up"? I think you'd call me a centrist but I'm not. I'm a lefty who thinks it's better to have a labour govt. And if you find "wake up" is your line of argument when people can't just see what's obvious to you, maybe examine your own thinking?
You believe there’s no such thing as a wasted vote under first past the post? It would be lovely were it so.
I think it's sort of a self fulfilling prophecy. If people voted (say) Green, then first time around for sure it would just put the Tories in government, but if a lot of people did it, then next time maybe more will vote for what they actually believe in, or maybe Labour would see that there are a lot of votes to be had by supporting better policies than simply trying to be the soggy left of the Tory party.
People in this country as a whole are centre right.
So why then Starmer's determination to follow the current Tory hard-right agenda?
All I hear on the stw political threads is how far-right and racist, practically fascist, the current Tory Party is. And yet the centrists want to minimise the distinction between Labour and the Tories.
That comment is nothing more than an apology for Keir Starmer/Liz Kendall supporting a policy which both disadvantages people on lower incomes and has bigotry at its very heart.
And furthermore it is very clear that on some issues Keir Starmer is absolutely determined to remain firmly on the right of public opinion, issues such as the common ownership of the utilities and calling a halt to the current genocide in Palestine.
Why is Labour so careful not appear too vocally liberal when it comes to immigration?!? Is that really a question at this point? Have you been asleep since 2016? This is all about winning over those Brexit voters in key seats.
I think it’s sort of a self fulfilling prophecy. If people voted (say) Green, then first time around for sure it would just put the Tories in government, but if a lot of people did it, then next time maybe more will vote for what they actually believe in, or maybe Labour would see that there are a lot of votes to be had by supporting better policies than simply trying to be the soggy left of the Tory party.
Great point.
And this is the reason why we play politics ping-pong. Everyone despises the Tories and perhaps Labour - but the Greens are the real crazies, apparently.
The whole thing is a multi-layered problem. We've gotten used to this system, and it's rubbish butno one seems to want change when it's offered.
I still think things have got to get way worse and they will.
Scary thought.
Neolibralism is good at slowing the decline. You can keep tinkering just enough.
Why is Labour so careful not appear too vocally liberal when it comes to immigration?!? Is that really a question at this point? Have you been asleep since 2016? This is all about winning over those Brexit voters in key seats.
Perhaps - but why not make progressive noises in other areas instead. You know talk up the NHS etc?
I could cope with the Brexit stance alone but it's surrounded by many other right-leaning noises too.
So are you shifting right? Or does it not work on you just on what you’re calling centrists who need to “wake up”? I think you’d call me a centrist but I’m not. I’m a lefty who thinks it’s better to have a labour govt
But what type of Labour government works for you?
There appears to be different versions. I want progressive push back not market economics etc.
Labour alone means nothing really to me currently.
'Wake-up' is aimed at Centrists that don't recognise their position is Neoliberal: ergo to the right. And an admission that Starmer has shifted policy to the right - instead of making excuse for his lies.
We have a powerful state with all the money it needs to do things for the good of everyone. Centrism doesn't accept that, it believes the myth of wealth creation starts in the private sector. Factually wrong.
But as has been pointed out on numerous occaisions there arent that many people in that camp that wont already be voting Labour.
But as has been pointed out on numerous occasions you need to keep those people voting labour.
The "who else will they vote" for has been demonstrated to be false. They vote for things like brexit since, reasonably, they see all politicians as the same.
People in this country as a whole are centre right.
It isnt. Otherwise the tory party wouldnt be dancing to the hard right tunes and the conservatives would get a constant majority of the votes as opposed to relying on a biased voting system.
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.
The problem is unlike the "centre right" who are happy dancing to the loons commands just to keep those nasty lefties out those on the left are more willing to compromise.
However thats going to have limits. When labour turn into a party compensating the centre right idiots for losing their party then people will go for alternatives.
Its why the right wingers are shouting "if you dont vote for Starmer you might as well vote tory"
Have you been asleep since 2016? This is all about winning over those Brexit voters in key seats.
Are you still flogging that line to justify racism?!?
You are as deluded as the current right-wing Tory government who think making "stop the boats" their number own priority will win them the next general election.
Wake up! Smell the coffee!
You believe there’s no such thing as a wasted vote under first past the post? It would be lovely were it so.
Yep, all those votes for UKIP/Reform over the years have been completely wasted. Made no discernible change to the country whatsoever.
The problem is unlike the “centre right” who are happy dancing to the loons commands just to keep those nasty lefties out those on the left are more willing to compromise.
I'd say they're more willing to become entryists ala Militant in the 80s and Momentum more recently, ensuring we get Tory govts. Let's see how successful the far right's take over of the Tories has been in the next election.
Yep, all those votes for UKIP/Reform over the years have been completely wasted. Made no discernible change to the country whatsoever.
If they split the right wing vote in the next election i'll consider them very well wasted indeed. I'd prefer we didn't split the progressive vote.
If they split the right wing vote in the next election i’ll consider them very well wasted indeed. I’d prefer we didn’t split the progressive vote.
If they split the right wing vote then the Tories will follow after them in the exact same way they have for the last decade or so. Then Labour will follow the Tories as they have done for the last 3 decades or so.
These 'wasted' votes will be far more effectively used than all the people who vote Labour even though they disagree with them.
Voting for a party you fundamentally disagree with is the only way to truly waste your vote.
I’d say they’re more willing to become entryists ala Militant in the 80s and Momentum more recently, ensuring we get Tory govts.
What an odd statement. Why shouldnt they join the labour party? Is it supposed to be reserved for the self proclaimed moderates with everyone else simply being required to vote for them.
As for ensuring we get tory govts. The centrists did far more to help that with their inability to compromise and hence support for the hard right brexit.
I’d prefer we didn’t split the progressive vote.
Then as a radical ****ing notion Starmer and his fellow right wingers should offer some policies to appeal to the left rather than simply chasing the hard right whilst whining about splitting the vote.
Yep, all those votes for UKIP/Reform over the years have been completely wasted. Made no discernible change to the country whatsoever.
That is more about timing and who is in power at the time. Tories were afraid of losing votes to UKIP, votes they couldn't afford to lose when in power. Labour are not in power and the green vote seems to stay very static in the polls but what you are suggesting is that if Green vote went up by 5% then Starmer would adopt more left wing policies and we would have a more left wing potential Labour government (ignoring the fact he may lose some centrist votes who see him going left wing)
Winning elections is a game of numbers and just because UKIP steered the Tories it doesn't mean that works in all scenarios.
I think votes for the Green Party have already moved Labour policy (on energy and investment at least).
At the next election though, it's about getting rid of Conservative MPs. That is the next step for everyone.
Future pressure on Labour on green (and economic and social) issues will be of more use if the Tories currently in power get completely marginalised.
Future pressure on Labour on green (and economic and social) issues will be of more use if the Tories currently in power get completely marginalised.
Yes, that is the "timing" that I mentioned. So let's all vote green as soon as Labour are in power and see how that goes.
Streeting is actually dangerous in my opinion.
He's definitely not got the success of the NHS in his sites, and I have absolutely no idea how he forms his opinions. His knowledge of economics and the NHS itself crumbles the minute someone with half a brain challenges him.
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1736307228926214145?t=LmYWQWayxtJ50MTFSZZBag&s=19
He's wrong. Spending is never unsustainable - government can't run out of what it issues.
They're the using the Tory failure to justify more Labour restraint. It absolutely doesn't make any sense.
the Conservatives have crashed the public finances, so that I can’t promise that if we come in there will be loads more cash to splash around.
Like Starmer Streeting is getting his excuses for failure in nice and early.
And I found this question he asks interesting :
"Patients can see it too - how many of us have received the letter for the appointment after the appointment has taken place?"
That has never happened to me. Is it really a common example of NHS wastage? I would have thought that PFI was a much better example?
Of course Streeting wants to reform the NHS, every Health Secretary for the last 30 years has wanted to do that. There is nothing that they apparently enjoy doing more than causing major upheavals in the NHS.
And yeah I agree, I also believe that Streeting is dangerous, he has no commitment to Labour values. Unfortunately he is far from unique, Steve Reed, an MP close me and Shadow Minister is equally dangerous imo, and for the same reason. Starmer's team is full of similar examples.
With the UK's position starting to shift in line with the United States shifting position I guess we can also expect Keir Starmer to follow soon.
With the UK’s position starting to shift in line with the United States shifting position I guess we can also expect Keir Starmer to follow soon.
By the time starmer gets his head out from between Tzipi’s arse it’ll be too late
https://twitter.com/TzipiHotovely/status/1735029398074531985?s=20
https://twitter.com/LaylaMoran/status/1736379495785836710?s=20
https://twitter.com/LaylaMoran/status/1736379495785836710?s=20
/blockquote>Yeah that story was covered by the Guardian:
He is a paid shill for private medical companies
Well yeah because it's not public purpose for sure.
Starmer’s team is full of similar examples.
They don't even give well thought out arguments as to the reasons why. Any scrutiny would absolutely tear them to shreds.
But we have no scrutiny.
With the UK’s position starting to shift in line with the United States shifting position I guess we can also expect Keir Starmer to follow soon
Yes I thought this - and my target will be every Centrist that said a cease fire is unworkable, because establishment geo-politics put a suit on and told them that.
By the time starmer gets his head out from betweenTzipi’s arse it’ll be too late
My old ex MP John Mann lingering around there in the background.
My Dad gave him a piece of his mind when Mann came knocking, doing some canvassing a few months ago.
I like how the word 'sustainable' has been put in front of cease fire.
It's a cease fire - but it's got to look different to the cease fire than was requested by people that didn't want the death toll this high.
Word salad.
Yes I thought this – and my target will be every Centrist that said a cease fire is unworkable, because establishment geo-politics put a suit on and told them that.
Why, every 'centrist', or is it easier to say 'those who disagree with me', have always based their arguments on here on simple facts, one of those being that the Israeli's will only really listen to the US, and that Israel have never really adhered to ceasefires, same as Hamas.
Again, as stated many times, let those who can influence this conflict continue to do that, i.e. Qatar as the brokers for any ceasefire/cessation of fighting/pause/etc, and the US 'advise' Israel. I doubt this'll happen, as the opposition leader of the UK appears to be the cornerstone of any ceasefire between two aggressors that are over 2000 miles away.
Any scrutiny would absolutely tear them to shreds.
But we have no scrutiny.
That is one of the luxuries of being in opposition - the lack of scrutiny.
One the roles of Parliament is to scrutinise the Government, but not the Opposition.
However things will change for Starmer and his team in probably about 6 months time. Obviously when the shit hits the fan everything will be the fault of the Tories. They are already blaming the Tories for the fact that Labour can only offer so little, if any, hope.
But that defence will have a limited shelf life, so things should get interesting. Especially if the Tories are reduced to a parliamentary rump with no credibility. Who will benefit from the political vacuum this will cause?
Obviously when the shit hits the fan everything will be the fault of the Tories. They are already blaming the Tories for the fact that Labour can only offer so little, if any, hope.
Are you suggesting the Tories will be leaving behind a functioning NHS, a healthy economy and social harmony? If not then at least for a while it will be perfectly reasonable to place the blame for the state of the country on the previous administration.
If not then at least for a while it will be perfectly reasonable to place the blame for the state of the country on the previous administration.
It's fine to blame them.
It's not fine to blame them and then continue with essentially the same policies.
Streeting is actually dangerous in my opinion.
He is. He's utterly vile. The only hope is that if/when Labour do become the government, that he proves so unpopular with his intentions, he is quickly removed from his position. That someone so venal and self-serving is anywhere near the Labour party is a disgrace.
Electorates have a habit of backfilling voids with promise-the-earth mad orators.
I don't really understand what that means but I am particularly intrigued as to who these "promise-the-earth mad orators" are.
Any examples which might shed some light?
Obviously when the shit hits the fan everything will be the fault of the Tories. They are already blaming the Tories for the fact that Labour can only offer so little, if any, hope.
Are you suggesting the Tories will be leaving behind a functioning NHS, a healthy economy and social harmony?
I wouldn't call winning a general election "the shit hitting the fan".
Are you suggesting the Tories will be leaving behind a functioning NHS, a healthy economy and social harmony?
They clearly are leaving it all in a total mess (and it's not been good for a long time.)
But let's not go down a path of Labour's hands being tied. And we all know things will take time to fix.
But Labour need to offer up change and stop following in the Conservative footsteps as if they don't ideologically want to fix things, or can't fix things.
That's the sentiment coming from pissant Streeting.
In fact his path is at utter odds with decent progressive values, sound resource allocation and state investment.
And we all know things will take time to fix.
Good point. It took a Labour government 3 whole years to create the National Health Service from scratch.
Obviously the UK emerging from years of global conflict with a wrecked economy and massively damaged infrastructure helps to explain why it took the 1945 Labour government so long to create the NHS.
But there was no shortage of determination.
Keir Starmer claims to be "Lazer focused" on what needs to be done. So that sounds encouraging.
I'm just aghast at the idea that Starmer can't offer anything positive - that's why we're in this mess because Conservatism is about destruction and concentration of wealth.
I mean, simply push in the opposite direction start changing the narrative - but it will all be ' Corbyn blah blah Communist broadband.' (Corbyn was in an irreconcilable position. Starmer the lucky sod doesn't have that.)
Well face it off! Push back. FFS.
The 'left' are push overs - but at least Zack Polanski knows what to put out it appears.
(James O'Brien the other day said if Labour came up with good ideas the Tories would nick them. The lamest most Centristy response ever. )
1) they'd never nick anything besides when are they going to implement it? When?
2) if they did a nick a good labour idea - (doesn't exist) - it would be good surely?
Good for us all.
You are too pessimistic imo rone. Firstly Labour doesn't really need to have much in the way of policies to win the next general election.
Secondly once in government all that will change - unlike Tony Blair Keir Starmer will inherit a failing economy.
He can decide to either follow the neoliberal austerity path or choose an alternative route.
Austerity will prove very hard to sell to the British people which is why it has become a dirty word which Tories now never use, despite previously championing (along with the LibDems) the alledged virtues of austerity.
Faced with a failing economy Starmer will be an extremely difficult position - I have little doubt that he will up end up wondering why he ever agreed to stand for the Labour leadership.
I can realistically see Starmer overseeing the full-blown pasokification of the Labour Party, something which hasn't really happened yet, unless he changes his tune.
And remember that in Greece PASOK went from 44% support to 5% in just 6 years, precisely because of its poor handling of an economic crisis and the implementation of austerity.
There simply won't be the option for things to carry on as they are now.
There simply won’t be the option for things to carry on as they are now.
Maybe. Things are hard to predict. I've been saying for a long time Neolibralism is on its arse but it has half-life where there's just enough people doing 'well' out of inflated assets etc.
Several times we've come close to collapse and the state does its job and supplies the money to fix things (by design ) then it's back to full blooded Capitalism - as Johnson so ignorantly pointed out just 'after' Covid.
But I will say this - the current. Labour party believes money comes from the private sector which will magically grow to fund the state.
So by that illogical and demonstrably incoherent economic landscape - how do they think it's going to happen?
Keir Starmer claims to be “Lazer focused” on what needs to be done
He is a bit of a helmet, tbf.
A Kryton (red dwarf) shaped helmet.
Starmer hasn't cut through with my mum. Had a chat with her about politics/state of country yesterday (which I haven't done for a few years) and while she agrees that country is in a state after 13 years of tories she doesn't see what difference anyone else will make.
She simply didn't see Starmer as any different which is not surprising is it because he is not different enough to make anyone care (in my mums case)
Also had to put her straight on immigration (again) which is a constant battle against the BS in the papers and again Starmer is not really helping to clear that up is he.
Also had to put her straight on immigration (again) which is a constant battle against the BS in the papers
That's a big problem imo. A lot of people, including on here, assume that if voters tell pollsters that they consider immigration to be a big problem it must be because they are bigots or racists.
Whilst often that is of course the case also often they are simply parroting what they hear politicians saying.
The same is also true with other issues. For example if voters hear politicians constantly saying that inflation is a very serious problem which must be treated as a priority then when they are asked by polestars what they consider to be an important issue they are very likely to reply "inflation", whether it is actually true or not. And whether they actually care or not.
That phenomena was first pointed out to me back in the Thatcher years during a one-to-one conversation with, of all people, the current Labour Party general secretary (and adviser to Starmer) David Evans.
Thatcher more than double unemployment despite fighting the 1979 general election on the central issue of high unemployment under Labour. Unemployment therefore became huge issue in the 1980s and when voters were asked by pollsters what was the most important issue they unsurprisingly replied "unemployment".
The problem was that it wasn't translating into serious electoral misfortune for the Tories. The reason for this was because it wasn't directly affecting approx 90% of the workforce (add to that the retired). So when asked by pollsters "what is the most important issue to you and your family" unemployment didn't figure in over 90% of cases.
Unemployment of course affected far more people indirectly in terms of causing lower wages, increased crime, weakening the social fabric of communities, substance abuse, increased taxation, etc, etc.
And yes I agree that Starmer should be challenging more forcibly Rishi Sunak's narrative that currently the most important issue is stopping the boats. If he emphasized how little it affects most people's lives, despite what Sunak says, it would diminish in importance.
Although presumably a lot of people already understand that which explains why Sunak doesn't appear to be benefiting from his endless small boat rhetoric.
A lot of people, including on here, assume that if voters tell pollsters that they consider immigration to be a big problem it must be because they are bigots or racists.
Now how I think of my mum, or any of the other older folk I know that fall for this pernicious stuff.
I don’t really understand what that means but I am particularly intrigued as to who these “promise-the-earth mad orators” are.
Any examples which might shed some light?
Argentinian dude, f'rinstance.
Now how I think of my mum, or any of the other older folk I know that fall for this pernicious stuff.
That should have be "Not how.." whoops.. 😬
Argentinian dude, f’rinstance.
Ah, I had assumed that it was with reference to the UK since it mentioned Keir Starmer and provided this link:
https://www.cityam.com/starmer-is-set-to-win-but-an-election-of-indifference-will-come-back-to-bite/
Argentine politics is significantly different to UK politics. I am certainly not aware of any obvious British “promise-the-earth mad orators”.
TBH I can't think of any current British politician which I would describe as an "orator". The lack of inspirational public speakers in UK politics is quite remarkable imo.
Evita's last speech to the Argentine people.
Like all successful fascists she had excellent oratory skills. Especially when delivered from balconies.
He can decide to either follow the neoliberal austerity path or choose an alternative route.
He'll choose the path inbetween. Not much will change at a systemic level, and to all intents and purposes the public will see very little difference to the austerity driven narrative that they see today. Behind closed doors though things will change, money will be found, and spent, and things like the NHS, council funding, schools etc will begin to improve. The next parliament is going to be all about spending as much money as they can whilst being able to hide that fact in complex technocratic accounting practices. MMT-lite through the backdoor basically, just like is happening in the US. They'll have just enough escape clauses in the manifesto to make spending happen whilst calling it 'investment'.
Yup, there has already been extra spending announced for health, education and energy transition. That they also talk about changes in tax take down the line whenever they are asked about that spend is just something to take on the chin... it's essential when talking to everyone else outside the little bubble of people taking MMT as the new great hope, rather than just a small change to economists' understanding. The public and media will still focus on "balancing"... so Labour politicians have their careful answers ready. Just embrace the spend, but ask for more. The tax changes they've earmarked so far are to be welcomed as well, they are basically just closing some huge gaping loopholes only available to the well off. The fact that they pretend the two are directly connected, when they know they are not, is just politics. It doesn't make them "Tories".
USA's economy has been doing very well - the total opposite of what they thought high interest rates would achieve.
It's time to take note.
You add new money to the economy either through interest rates or deficit spending - it grows the economy.
(I'm not talking about distribution, that could always be better for sure.)
(And I know there are plenty on here that get MMT but remember we already operate MMT but governments (mostly) pretend/believe that we tax first and spend later. Operationally it's impossible - simply put - spending has to happen first so the government can collect tax! You can't collect tax if money is not spent. Therefore spending is not reliant on tax take which is where the lame arguments are being made.)
I don't share the optimism above really. Tinkering around the edges is managed decline.
It's all so fascinating and depressing at the same time.
I don’t share the optimism above really.
Wouldn't call it optimism, just a bit of realism. Ultimately we're in a bit of a no-mans land when it comes to govt policy and action so all we can do is wait and see. From now until the election it's all just messaging and PR, we have absolutely no idea what labour will actually do until they're in power. What is certain though is that voters will expect change, if they don't get it then Starmer will be crucified.
Wouldn’t call it optimism, just a bit of realism. Ultimately we’re in a bit of a no-mans land when it comes to govt policy and action so all we can do is wait and see
Agreed to a point. I just don't see any indications - and what does Starmer getting crucified look like? We've seen how bad governments/leaders can hang on in there.
I mean, realism has still delivered successively bad Governments.
It's all to play for - but I see no one with a ball.
PR, we have absolutely no idea what labour will actually do until they’re in power
For sure given the amount of lying and making stuff up. But just about everything that comes out of Starmer, Reeves or Streeting's mouth is pretty regressive.
I see no indication of change - and when do governments via left when in power?
The tax changes they’ve earmarked so far are to be welcomed as well, they are basically just closing some huge gaping loopholes only available to the well off.
Think Labour will be more active on this front than many expect, but they won't be shouting it from the rooftops. Aside from their headline grabbing abolition of non-doms, most tax changes affecting the rich will be buried deep in the budget and barely anyone will notice, and that's what will give them the cover to do it.
(And I know there are plenty on here that get MMT but remember we already operate MMT but governments (mostly) pretend/believe that we tax first and spend later.
They mostly try and very loosely balance tax and spend policies, apart from long term investment. They don't pretend that you can't spend what you haven't already raised in tax. Policy announcements nearly always have new spending starting well before any new tax revenue comes in.
Anyway, Labour will spend more. They just state that how much extra they can spend is restricted. I think that it is, but the current announcements are too tight. Dazh is hoping that more will come later. That's what should be pushed for in the coming years, for sure.
Addressing spending and taxation concerns together is just how Labour have to present themselves. There's a strange folk memory that Labour will not spend wisely... despite all the evidence of how the alternative spends so unwisely... and Labour still have to be unbelievably painfully careful if they want to get into government at all, and they also need to avoid overpromising beyond what can be delivered in the first few years if they want to try and stay in government. You may want them to shout from the rooftops that big spending is on the way, that the constraints on government spending are illusory... it is simply not going to happen. It would be a huge mistake. The voters still haven't get their heads around the £20 billion a year extra figure for the energy transition. Sell that, and the increases in NHS and education budgets first. Push for more once those have become normalised and unthreatening to the voter. Show it working... then do more.
and what does Starmer getting crucified look like?
Well ultimately being a one-term PM after being kicked out by the electorate. If he lasts that long. I'm not quite as confident as Ernie that the left will have some sort of resurrection on the back of a weak tory opposition as the PLP will be blind drunk on the elixir of power. But the voters will be expecting to see things changing pretty quickly, and if they don't then they'll switch back to the tories (or Farage) and Starmer will become a lame duck in much the same way Sunak is now.
(And I know there are plenty on here that get MMT but remember we already operate MMT but governments (mostly) pretend/believe that we tax first and spend later. Operationally it’s impossible – simply put – spending has to happen first so the government can collect tax! You can’t collect tax if money is not spent. Therefore spending is not reliant on tax take which is where the lame arguments are being made.)
Surely that point can be made by using just one word........"deficit"?
In the last half a century there has only been 5 years when there has not been a deficit, in the UK.
So for 90% of the time it has been proved that the need for balanced budgets is in fact bollocks. And yet the Tories and Labour still insist that it is necessary. Despite the cold hard facts.
They mostly try and very loosely balance tax and spend policies, apart from long term investment.
Well evidence says governments don't run surpluses the majority of the time. Because it's recession inducing. So not sure what balance you mean.
2nd all Government spending is investment. Good or bad.
They don’t pretend that you can’t spend what you haven’t already raised in tax.
Of course they do !
That is Reeves' main line of attack. She wants to grow the economy so she can collect in tax to spend on public services!
That is Labour's central fallacy.
So for 90% of the time it has been proved that the need for balanced budgets is in fact bollocks. And yet the Tories and Labour still insist that it is necessary. Despite the cold hard facts.
Totally.
It's groan inducing for me. Money needs to enter the economy to spend. Private individuals can't mint money - only the government and its agents can.
The deficit is badly phrased to make us annoyed we are on the hook for a debt. This whole line has been been driven into society to believe our kids will pay for something one day. It's total horseshit.
Government spending is double entry accounting. The government deficit is the private sector's wealth.
And is removed by taxation. Because taxation is a coercive way to give £££ value. Without taxation there would be no demand to pay what the government is the sole issuer of.
Simply put you need to get £££ to pay your tax bill.
It's dead easy at this level.
if they don’t then they’ll switch back to the tories
It might well be a case of "Tory Party? What Tory Party?"
Okay I exaggerate but it should not be underestimated just how much on its knees the Tories might possibly be after the next general election, making it extremely difficult for them to mount a quick come back.
I am obviously acutely aware that there is no guarantee that the Left will automatically be the beneficiaries of the political vacuum caused by discredited Tories/New Labour (on steroids) the far-right often fill the void left by mainstream parties, Europe certainly shows that.
But luckily the far-right are not in a strong electoral position in the UK unlike in Europe (neither are the Left) So there is everything to fight for, especially if the Labour Party splits under the weight of endless attacks on the Left by the Starmerites, a process which is currently happening on a small scale.
A Left-Green alliance is a realistic possibility. And the Greens are currently polling at a similar level to Reform UK.
In the last half a century there has only been 5 years when there has not been a deficit, in the UK.
For sure. It's hard to avoid this one.
Black and white.
Look what happened when Clinton generated a surplus. (Clinton enjoyed a decent run until he started attempting to pay down the debt.)
Simply put in dead easy terms - surpluses remove money from an economy. Where does that lead?
Doh.
A government can't save money either - as the money is simply taken out of circulation not added to a stock pile anywhere.
The Fed and BoE don't keep reserves from tax collection.
They have to do a sweep at the end of the day to reset the accounts to zero.
That is Reeves’ main line of attack. She wants to grow the economy so she can collect in tax to spend on public services!
That is Labour’s central fallacy.
Or a convenient PR soundbite that plays to the ignorance of the electorate. I don't believe for one second that Rachel Reeves, a former Bank of England economist, really thinks that we need to balance the books or raise taxes to spend. It's all doublespeak. She's grow the economy by boosting spending in the way it's always been done, then she'll claim that the resultant growth has given them more money to spend. I wish it wasn't necessary, but this slight of hand is the only way labour can avoid being labelled as irresponsible spenders of other people's money.
https://twitter.com/IsabelOakeshott/status/1737026413641846881?t=E81lzw5IIcMUzbHJOpPxvw&s=19
When the right lean left economically...
(Interesting - Reform take this sort of view sometimes. Tice being her partner. )
I don’t believe for one second that Rachel Reeves, a former Bank of England economist, really thinks that we need to balance the books or raise taxes to spend. It’s all doublespeak.
Sure, but I don't fully accept your explanation for her parroting the Tory narrative. No doubt there is an element of "she feels it is necessary", although with a Labour lead of 15-20% over the Tories I wouldn't over-emphasis the need.
But I doubt it is because she is some sort of closet socialist with a passion to implement a Robin Hood agenda. In fact I would say the opposite - it is to make clear what her goals are.
Which all the current evidence suggests that it is to maintain the status quo and agenda of the last 40 years and not oversee an irreversible shift in wealth away from billionaires and in favour of ordinary working people.
Why do you believe that her agenda is different to that or of the One Nation Tories?
I agree with your suggestion of increased Labour spending on the NHS though. But only because it makes supreme political sense, and Rishi Sunak is currently being urged by pollsters and more sensible Tories to drop the Rwanda bollocks and instead focus on the NHS and the cost of living.
Why do you believe that her agenda is different to that or of the One Nation Tories?
I don't, at the very best she's bang in the middle, somewhere similar to where Nick Clegg is. Starmer I don't know, it's impossible to know because he's proven he'll say whatever his advisors tell him. I certainly don't think they're on a secret Robin Hood mission either, but I do think they're motivated to improve core services because of nothing more than electoral calculus and the will to hang on to power.
parroting the Tory narrative
If you want Labour to spend the next six months trying to educate the British public on your favoured economic theories, rather than listening to them and reassuring them using ideas and terms they understand... that's fine. But we can all see why they're not doing that. And so can you.
I don’t believe for one second that Rachel Reeves, a former Bank of England economist, really thinks that we need to balance the books or raise taxes to spend. It’s all doublespeak.
I do.
It's typical neoclassical thinking.
If you want Labour to spend the next six months trying to educate the British public on economics, rather than reassuring them using ideas they understand… that’s fine. But we can all see why they’re not doing that. And so can you.
No - there's a large gap between 'the country is broke (bullshit) and we are going to do something great here.'
No one is asking anyone to educate people on economics - just stop Tory framing of finances.
And using you're own words there is no reassurance at all currently. Just excuses.
But we can all see why they’re not doing that. And so can you.
Absolutely. Throughout my entire life Labour has always been on the defensive from Tory attacks. Certainly since the collapse of the post-war consensus.
And Labour's main means of defense has been not to challenge the Tory narrative, that is difficult, but to fundamentally agree with it and simply offer what they would claim is a better and more acceptable way to achieve the same objectives.
A classic example of this was the 2010 general election in which the Tories (with a little help from the LibDems who turned up late to the neoliberal party after the tragic death of Charles Kennedy) made clearing the deficit, caused by the failure of the banks and neoliberalism, absolutely central.
Instead of fighting back Labour agreed with the Tories and the LibDems that clearing the deficit was the priority, Miliband simply said, after pretty much accepting that it was Labour's fault, that a Labour government would do it in double the timescale.
So the voters hear all three parties say exactly the same thing - the economic priority is to clear the deficit, do they vote for a party which claims that they will do it over one parliament, or one that wants to drag its feet and resolve this crucially important economic priority over the course of two parliaments?
The 2010 general election result wasn't totally surprising, was it?
The 2010 general election result wasn’t totally surprising, was it?
Brown never had a chance in 2010 whatever he said. All he had to shout about was rescuing the banks, hardly a good slogan for a labour PM to campaign on. Bigot-gate was fun though.
Miliband simply said, after pretty much accepting that it was Labour’s fault, that a Labour government would do it in double the timescale.
Apologies that should have said Brown.
Brown never had a chance in 2010 whatever he said.
Well the Tories failed to win a majority and had a rely on the LibDems to come to their rescue. Although admittedly Gordon Brown did worse in 2010 than Jeremy Corbyn did in 2019, in terms of both total Labour votes and percentage share of the vote.
Labour did a dreadful job at not fighting their corner back then.
They rolled over and accepted the criticisms of too much spending and appeared to land themselves in trouble over the GFC, despite it having not a whole lot to do with them.
Not enough push-back.
It's probably hard to do battle with the excesses of a capitalist economy when you claim you need it to work for you too.
However that's only because Labour refuse to make good arguments.
I don’t, at the very best she’s bang in the middle, somewhere similar to where Nick Clegg is.
So pretty hard right economically?
Fun fact is that Paul Marshall who funded Clegg and his fellow orange book lib dems after their project hit the rails switched to the tories. Currently one of the funders for GB news amongst other tory associates.
Another U-turn on its way: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/22/keir-starmer-considers-scaling-back-labour-28bn-pounds-green-plans
Beat me to it Ransos!
There will be nothing left to remove soon.
Technically I didn't think it was that ambitious anyway (as the Guardian calls it.) Still it's a bigger spend than risible £3 bn for the NHS.
Either way, simply more bad news and waste of everyone's time.