Forum menu
I was at a conference in the summer where Ed Miliband was speaking. He described the plan as "the biggest no brainer in public policy".
He's right.
There's a lot of no brainers going around. All ways around.
Yep, why would you choose to scale back on this? £28 billion is nothing so not the money so is he after votes of people who "hate all this climate change shit" or words to that effect?
God knows.
I like how pretending to 'save money' (Government never saves money - there is no account at the BoE for that purpose) or play to outrage-ists is better than trying to fix the planet.
Why when Labour's polling gets better does Starmer allude to even more terrible politics?
465 people in Uxbridge have a lot to answer for. Still, it’s always wise to have low expectations from Lab on environmental matters.
U-turning on this is also going to do nothing to stop people moving from Lab to the Greens.
Maybe the opposition have more information on the state of the nation and the finances behind it than people on an internet forum?
Is the best argument that Starmers supporters can now bring that we should just blindly follow without questioning whatever path he decides to take us down. Maybe given that the government have more information than the opposition, the logical conclusion of your dismissive statement is that we should all doff our caps to the wisdom of our "leaders" and vote tory.
Personally I suspect it is more about ideology than information.
Maybe the opposition have more information on the state of the nation and the finances behind it than people on an internet forum?
Sorry that's just poor quality deflection.
How much did Governments spend after WW2 - from a pretty broken place? (Compared to GDP ) Yeah look it up.
How much did they spend on COVID (public records) - circa 400billion - from the exact same shitty Tory finances. There was more or less zero growth back in 2019/20 - just before COVID and the government - the Tory government spent 400billion over the next two years with little economic activity.
How has the BoE transferred huge sums of cash via interest income to private banks with rubbish state finances in the last 2 years?
Centrist thinking is often oddly lacking in pragmatism, and no matter how appalling Starmer has behaved there's always an invisible technocratic reason they can't do something. (see Lammy registering a 'sustainable' cease-fire after 20,000 have been killed.)
You seem to look everywhere apart from what's in front of your nose.
Government finances are a matter of public record. Very little is hidden - it's all enshrined in various acts and balance sheets. The only thing that's complex is how they jump through hoops to convince people they need to pull money from the private sector sector when they have their own damn Bank that issues the pound every time they spend.
If you want to keep making tepid excuses for a poor quality future in the UK because you accept Neoliberal mythology - crack on.
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
Agreed, like public spending caused it. But what they need to do now is gain power with an operating majority from the bottom of a deep hole. It's not a foregone conclusion this will happen. I can't say I'm over keen on the "responsible" messaging and expectation management of the electorate. But it would be risky to do anything very different and, given the importance of putting the Tories out in the cold for a long long time, you can see why they're doing it. And will just have to cope with a bit of dismay from folks who say they're never going to vote for them anyway.
Is the best argument that Starmers supporters can now bring that we should just blindly follow without questioning whatever path he decides to take us down. Maybe given that the government have more information than the opposition, the logical conclusion of your dismissive statement is that we should all doff our caps to the wisdom of our “leaders” and vote tory.
So you'd rather have politicians and political parties promising jam tomorrow and spending the next 5 years seeing them roll back on promises they could never keep?
Please don't feed the troll.
So you’d rather have politicians and political parties promising jam tomorrow and spending the next 5 years seeing them roll back on promises they could never keep?
Austerity has failed all but a few, I would prefer politicians not to continue repeating the same mistake.
Besides if there is one thing we can be sure about Starmer, it is that he has continuously rowed back on the promises he has made. It as a rather curious defence of him to raise his most significant and persistent character flaw.
Maybe the opposition have more information on the state of the nation and the finances behind it than people on an internet forum?
Nope, what they probably have is focus groups telling them two things. First is that voters have a general (and erroneous) view that the government/country doesn't have any money. The second is that voters aren't hugely keen on the changes to their lifestyles that net-zero will require, especially when those changes aren't going to be applied to the top few percent of rich people who will carry on with their carbon-intensive lifestyles unaffected.
Starmer and Reeves have clearly decided that there's nothing they can do to change public opinion about how much money the country has to spend - they may even believe it themselves although I doubt that - and that trying to change that opinion risks losing them more votes in key areas (the red wall, small-c conservative constituencies) than it will lose them in more traditional labour areas. Remember Starmer said he doesn't want the tories to be talking about any labour party policies on the doorstep, this is just another example of that.
What we don't know of course is whether Labour will still spend 28bn on green industrial policies when they're in power. Along with many other things we're just going to have to wait until they're in power. Until then everything they say is just PR.
is he after votes of people who “hate all this climate change shit” or words to that effect?
To be fair thats a large proportion of traditional Labour voters so makes sense if he wants the red wall seats back. A few middle class lefties might defect to the Greens but I expect most are already there and the Greens are not a credible force at the moment.
It does make me laugh though, with all the Starmer hate from the more intelligent left wing voters here, you're not his target audience, he needs to win back the rump of ignorant, inward looking and self centered voters the Tories hoovered up last time with their successful, racist and hate filled othering of anyone vaguely funny looking. I would wager he knows exactly what hes doing, the fact you all dont like it is pretty irrelevant and doesnt make his approach to getting elected wrong. Proof of whther his strategy is any good will come in the next GE.
Proof of whther his strategy is any good will come in the next GE.
Beating a 90 year old cripple at football isn't proof that I am a balon d'or candidate.
And he doesn't need to be aping tory narratives and tactics to win over red wall voters, he just has to have policies to improve their lives, to actually give them some hope instead of the same political indifference that they received all their life.
If Starmer gets elected next time round, and I sincerely hope he does, it won't be as a result of his strategy or substituting austerity with 'fiscal rules' it will be due to the Tories' failures and corruption. His hand will have to be forced by people fighting their corner. Sadly a lot of these red wall areas are places with historically low TU membership, low wages and poor educational achievement as a result. People will only get what they fight for, to think otherwise is naive in the extreme. The only group of workers who get nice things and largesse whilst sitting on their arses are MPs.
Maybe the opposition have more information on the state of the nation and the finances behind it than people on an internet forum?
LOL! I absolutely love this...... the idea that Starmer and those around him know better than the general population just how bad the nation's finances are, but want to keep schtum about the Tories's dirty little secret! I bet Rishi Sunak is grateful😂
Argee is basically recycling his previous argument that Starmer won't support a ceasefire in Palestine because he probably has access to top secret intelligence which he can't talk about, and which bizarrely justifies slaughtering innocent civilians.
It is certainly a novel argument....."so and so politician must be correct because he probably knows stuff which he can't divulge". I mean who can argue against that?!?
No Ernie, our politicians have no knowledge of the countries finances, how government works or access to the departments they work with or who support parliamentary questions, it's all a bit secret that's only known by 3 civil servants who meet every Wednesday.
I would wager he knows exactly what hes doing, the fact you all dont like it is pretty irrelevant and doesnt make his approach to getting elected wrong. Proof of whther his strategy is any good will come in the next GE.
I agree and have always said that. He has a good strategy to get elected, the problem is he will be elected on something that turns out very similar to tory party so he is in for 5 years isn't he as people will ask what difference he has made and go back to voting for the tories again (forgetting they made it worse and also didn't make any positive difference). I don't know why they do this but it seems to always happen.
it’s all a bit secret that’s only known by 3 civil servants who meet every Wednesday.
And don't forget Starmer! They keep him informed, he knows loads of damning stuff about how the Tories have screwed the economy, far beyond what us mere mortals know, but he just can't tell us! 😆
Proof of whther his strategy is any good will come in the next GE.
And on day 2?
A bit of fun… Telegraph headline…
I’m sure you’ll find similar headlines for when Johnson, Truss and Sunak wore fatigues. 🤪
And don’t forget Starmer! They keep him informed, he knows loads of damning stuff about how the Tories have screwed the economy, far beyond what us mere mortals know, but he just can’t tell us! 😆
No, that would be internal tory party information you'd be talking about, i'm on about a member of parliament having access to information within government, and in terms of security and other things, the opposition leader and specific shadow cabinet members being privy to briefings and so on.
The mindset you have, you seem to think that only tory MPs have access to government information, forgetting that almost everything goes through parliamentary approvals, committees, votes, etc, etc, so information is available for those who require it.
You seem to have forgotten what you said argee, which was this:
Maybe the opposition have more information on the state of the nation and the finances behind it than people on an internet forum?
The opposition do not have more information concerning the nation's finances than is available to the public.
And the idea that the nation's finances are actually worse than is public knowledge, and Starmer knows this but like the Tories wants to keep it a secret, is patently ridiculous.
He would of course be using it to attack the current Tory government.
The reason Starmer is reigning on previous commitments has obviously nothing to do with him having secret information about the dire state of the UK economy.
If anything Starmer is of course more likely to exaggerate how bad things are under the current government, not keeping it a secret.
So no, he very clearly does not have more information.
"Labour warned against ‘dancing to Tory tune’ by offshoring asylum claims"
Be great if the Tories copied Labour on ideas for once.... If there were any ideas.
https://twitter.com/wesstreeting/status/1741081367440408683?t=QtrtYS6Iy2N46mgd21zxMQ&s=19
Imagine what this unruly tit is going to be like once in power.
His tweet is a total sham, designed to obfuscate.
Hopefully for you we’ll get another 5 years of the tories then.
This is a terrible argument.
Wishing for a more progressive Labour party = wanting Tories to be in power.
Don't be so short-sighted.
Labour may not be the the Tories but they're damn well Conservative.
This could be a legitimate point. The NHS is able to collect data like almost no other organisation. This data is very valuable to people who want to develop treatments. So, we have the data, we can sell it to them (anonymised, of course), they can then develop treatments that we need to cure our illnesses, and we can buy them back at a discount. I would call that a win/win/win.
IF that's what ends up happening.
So, we have the data, we can sell it to them (anonymised, of course
Problem is anonymisation whilst remaining useful is very, very hard verging on impossible.
On St Starmer Cruddas seems to becoming less of a fan
Ok, so they mis-spell Labour.
This could be a legitimate point. The NHS is able to collect data like almost no other organisation. This data is very valuable to people who want to develop treatments.
I recently received a letter from StJames, Leeds giving me the opportunity to refuse permission for them to share my data with the "Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust and Flatiron Health UK Cancer Data Partnership" for this very purpose.
Putting anything of this magnitude out to the private sector and buying back is total capitalist nonsense.
The same labour pool and resources are available to the public sector to invest.
We've seen where this ends.
This is what you get when twerps such as Streeting don't recognise the government can afford what is available.
Streeting hasn't got a clue about value or he'd be trumping up investment by the state.
Besides, most of the ground breaking science comes from the state in the first place.
Streeting's aim is the line the pockets of shareholders because that's how he sees his model whilst pretending the NHS is not for sale.
(I totally get suppliers exist in the private sector to buy from - that's good but what's he's talking about here is just unnecessary because the State is the innovator and researcher with big pockets.)
He simply doesn't want to talk about NHS investment in any substantial way.
If Starmer fails to deliver on wages/cost of living, the NHS, housing and rents, as Cruddas points out it could mean an implosion of the LP and the door will be left wide open for rightwing populists. You've only to look at Italy, Germany, Netherlands, Hungary to see the direction of travel.
Putting anything of this magnitude out to the private sector and buying back is total capitalist nonsense.
How do you think most drug development works now?
I'm not saying it's necessarily optimal but it's pharma/biotech that has the international scope and massively outspends govt on R&D generally in the UK, never mind on development of new drugs, diagnostics, devices etc. And it's the NHS that buys the stuff. Govt's job is to regulate and otherwise set the environment (address areas of market failure, international pandemics etc) and the NHS's to negotiate a good price.
Obv data to drive the above is from clinical trials and related studies but it's not v different in principle. It's more the 'how' than the 'what' that's the issue (and fwiw I think Streeting does have a lot to learn).
Rone's point was not about drug developement but the wholesale selling of our data to external (to this country) entities whose data security is demonsatrably porous.
Testing data is a very different beast to health data on everything, it is quite narrowly focussed and generated by the trials. Next thing AIG will be refusing insurance because they have drawn a conclusion, that may not be correct, from a large tranche of data.
People's ability to travel will be restricted, you can't come in here you've had hepatitis, you're using tramadol and you have had a sex change. Not ideal if it's your family affected.
Business money making is down to taking risks not safety. If you're being safe you deserve only minimal profits from our data.
It was an analogy, but research data for commercial studies can be pretty extensive and certainly relevant to insurance and travel etc.
The companies which fund these studies are international, and generally we want their investment, expertise and innovation, and products here. But they are no angels, they need to make money and will go as close as they can to whatever regulatory lines are enforced. That's the analogy with private sector use of health data. There's folks on here who know a lot about this but are unlikely to come near this messed up thread.
People’s ability to travel will be restricted, you can’t come in here you’ve had hepatitis,
Hang on. How would they know what I've had? How would they link a random 46 year old white male with molgrips of STW? Insurance companies have to.operate above board, if someone dodgy is able to data mine and somehow link the two together, would an insurance company be able to deny coverage based on that?
I'm not saying that would never happen, I'm saying that with proper regulation we do have a valuable source of data that companies might need and that might save your or my life one day. Don't just say 'private bad'. Now I personally don't like private enterprise in healthcare but we are where we are, and we should be able to make the best of it. Problem is that requires competent government which is in short supply.
So what's the 'take home' from all of this..?
Labour are a bunch of arse holes, and so are the tories.
As someone who is more philosophically aligned to the Liberal Democrats, I'll still vote Liberal Democrat?
Change my mind.
If Starmer fails to deliver
I'm sure you meant to say when Starmer fails to deliver?
The take - for me is the adherence to a failed system by the three major parties.
There's plenty of evidence that we could make things better but it appears no matter how bad it gets - no one really wants to change much.
Starmer pratting around with a 10 year old version of Conservatism will simply help shift all parties to the right.
It's also pretty obvious to me on the back of Covid that the state is the enabler for change. The private sector can help deliver it of course but the change has to start with the intention of removing profit making middle-men from the most crucial of our services.
People simply want to believe reform and competence are the conduit but we're a long way from that.
It's does stagger me that if politics was an actual science (with measurable outcomes better than made up inflationary targets) we would have abandoned this model years ago.
As someone who is more philosophically aligned to the Liberal Democrats, I’ll still vote Liberal Democrat?
Change my mind.
What is really the difference between Starmers Labour and the Liberal Democrats? Seeing that difference is smaller than ever then maybe vote for Starmers Labour so you get something closer to you want as the government rather than getting nothing by voting Liberal Democrat?
Voting is a massive compromise so you can only ever vote for the closest thing anyway. I am most closely aligned to Green Party but in my case there is little compromise as where I live the Tory will still get 50% even with the tories overall piss poor ratings
As someone who is more philosophically aligned to the Liberal Democrats, I’ll still vote Liberal Democrat?
Change my mind.
It's not for me to try to change your philosophical alignment, just that if you have a chance to vote out a Tory MP please take it (I'd vote Lib to do this). And ignore those on here trying to tell you this is pointless.
"Change my mind."
You honestly think the Tories and Labour are the same? If so, your mind cannot be changed. I am also more closely aligned to the LD but will always vote tactically if required.
They didn't say they were the same, just that they are both a bunch of arseholes. I find it difficult to disagree until proven otherwise.
Come the election, your vote goes towards deciding who is your MP. Talk to both the Tory candidate and their leading opponent (Labour or otherwise) in person. Ask them some searching questions. Then decide if they really are both arseholes and who you’d rather represent you in parliament.
It’s easy for me, the current Conservative MP is a grade A arsehole who’s blocked me for asking very simple polite questions, where as the Labour candidate has come across as decent, measured and considerate in my dealings with him.
Talk to the candidates, and then decide.
I honestly couldn't tell you who the local Tory and Labour MP hopefuls are. The MSP aspirants are arseholes across the spectrum Tory (current councillor), Labour (Katy Clark, the ex-MP for the area who did **** all for anyone during her tenure) & Green (couldn't even get elected as a councillor and just a generally nasty shit) for sure, the rest are also-rans or just not worth bothering about.
But to address your actual point, a better class of arsehole doesn't negate the fact they are one in the first place. Frankly at this point SKS can promise what he likes and I have absolutely no confidence in him even attempting to deliver any of it. So you're essentially voting for the least worst option, and people wonder why people become disillusioned and apathetic...
As someone who is more philosophically aligned to the Liberal Democrats, I’ll still vote Liberal Democrat?
Change my mind.
Can anyone explain to me what the philosophical alignment of the LibDems is?
I always assumed it was to position themselves somewhere between Labour and Tory philosophies so that if neither party was able to get an outright majority they could slip in without being too awkward and get themselves some of those nice government jobs.
So their philosophical alignment currently lies somewhere between the 2014 Tories and 2014 UKIP.
If that's where you feel your philosophical alignment is then all I can say is that's not something I'd feel proud of declaring but you do you.
Can anyone explain to me what the philosophical alignment of the LibDems is?
I think they're very close to the Conservatives actually. Market led pretenders. Perhaps without the scowling hatred of migrants. But equally happy to plunder their labour too.
But, who knows these days as Labour have shifted towards that direction - leaving 3 parties all wasting our time. You're still talking heavy reliance on the market to deliver solutions from the Lib Dems. I don't consider them a party in the a actual center at all really. Be interesting to see if they reinvent themselves. There's clearly room for some Nationalisation ideas somewhere.
I suppose come the general election we will get a clearer view.
But to address your actual point, a better class of arsehole doesn’t negate the fact they are one in the first place.
That wasn’t my point. My point was to actually engage with your candidates. One might well not be an arsehole at all. Which is what I have found of most MPs and candidates I have dealt with, including Conservatives. Not true of our current Tory MP, or those in nearby constituencies. Find out who your candidates are and talk to them. Use your nose. Don’t condemn people you can’t be bothered to deal with… they are your representatives in parliament, or want to be… so engage with them before dismissing them.
So you’re essentially voting for the least worst option
And, FWIW, I actually think SKS is still the worst option in the longer term. The sooner a genuine alternative to Tory and Tory-lite is on offer, the better it will be for the country as a whole. That alternative will only come about when Labour gets its collective shit together and that will be long delayed in the event of a SKS victory.
They have already nailed their colours to the mast.
Tory boy has been an absolute nobody until about 6 months ago and unsurprisingly announced his candidacy a few months later. Usually found being a knob on Facebook and making a public spectacle of himself by noising up the incumbents.
Clark was the MP for several years, absolutely loathed Hunterston power station (one of the only major employers in the area) and did absolutely nothing to advocate for workers when the NI changes were pushed through for those on contracted out pensions. Disappeared off to be Corbyns secretary and now expects everyone to have forgotten her track record. Industry now in an even worse state than when she was in office.
Green arse likes to be a knob on Facebook, regularly gets nasty with anyone who doesn't agree with him and the local NIMBY fraternity. Frankly I think he's about about as green as the Great Gonzo and just uses it as a vehicle to stifle development in the already zoned industrial areas to protect house prices. Last seen harassing Asian mussel pickers and chasing them off the beach.
I don't need to speak to them to know they're absolute throbbers, as I said they've done a good job of making that very clear.
"And, FWIW, I actually think SKS is still the worst option in the longer term. The sooner a genuine alternative to Tory and Tory-lite is on offer, the better it will be for the country as a whole. That alternative will only come about when Labour gets its collective shit together and that will be long delayed in the event of a SKS victory."
That's an interesting perspective, which I can understand and appreciate. However, I don't read it that way at all. I'd predict that if Labour don't win this year, both parties will shift further right.
You’re talking about MSP candidates Squirrelking? I was talking about the UK general election. Considering that the Scottish government is unlikely to be a Tory one, and the voting system is different, none of my points apply. Vote for whoever you wish. At the UK general election, access the two front runners (the candidates) and vote for who you prefer. You could be unlucky, and both are arseholes… but in most seats I’ve looked at that’s simply not the case, and definitely isn’t the case for me, luckily.
As for Scotroutes hoping for a Conservative win to teach the opposition parties a lesson… dream on. The UK is ****ed if the Tories can still win from their current position, and that means all of the UK.
Yeah that's MSP's but tbh it makes no difference either way right now, our MP and MSP are spouses. Labour isn't even fielding known candidates locally, straight from the lib dems playbook and destined to go just as well.
Hang on. How would they know what I’ve had?
Busy yesterday but see that bit where I pointed out that those recieving the data are porous.Do you honestly think that US based companies handling our data are going to abide by our rules?
As a bit of a demonstration, have a look how many times US corporations can't get dismissing workers based here and going to an office in UK correct. That shows exactly how much coporate America understands and applies our practices in a lawful manner.
The UK is ****ed if the Tories can still win from their current position, and that means all of the UK.
Just the mere thought makes me shudder. They would basically go forward with their madness with utter impunity. Another 5 years of accelerated carnage from these shits and I'm not sure there will be much of a society left to salvage.
Can anyone explain to me what the philosophical alignment of the LibDems is?
Traditionally it was a liberal party so a mixed/freeish market policy but with relative strong welfare policies as well as civil rights protections.
In terms of relations to other parties its more than the others, at various times, have stepped into the libdem alignment to some degree.
For example under Thatcherism the tories (and then new labour) diveed onto the free market side of things but went far further than the libdems (at least until the orange book loonies got in - funded by one of the gbeebies sponsors).
They are the party that most of the self announced "moderates" and "centrists" should probably belong to. However since despite fantasies otherwise they are a long, long way from being the silent majority its best to try and drag the other parties onto their turf and hope those parties members dont notice the switch.
So I would say your reading of their position is probably wrong although it is hard to tell with the current leadership and its invisibility cloak.
As with labour there can be a disconnect between the members and the leadership especially, as above, under the orange book lot.
The sooner a genuine alternative to Tory and Tory-lite is on offer, the better it will be for the country as a whole.
Any such thing will be skewered with the press as it is at the moment - see Corbyn, Kinnock, Foot.
Exactly - Corbyn offered a better alternative and look what happened. Okay he was useless in ways that allowed the attacks from Media/Tory party but the alternative was there for people to take but they seemed more interested in getting Brexit done if I remember...
Do we think the MSM is still as influential as it was? There must be a significant chunk of people who've realised that they've been had over Brexit and Corbyn and AS.
It's like Beergate has been forgotten; front page day after day about nothing (Starmer&Rayner played that well, promising to resign and taking the wind out of the papers attacking them). If they can hit Starmer, they will. On anything. Like Miliband's dad, or how he eats a sandwich... if they get the chance, they'll take the Labour leader down.
Do we think the MSM is still as influential as it was?
It will always be used as an excuse, by both the right and the left of the Labour Party, in an attempt to explain electoral failure.
And it is about as useful as claiming that the Tories always lie.
I think they go very lightly on Starmer, he’s their man
Absolutely!
Exactly – Corbyn offered a better alternative and look what happened. Okay he was useless in ways that allowed the attacks from Media/Tory party but the alternative was there for people to take but they seemed more interested getting Brexit done if I remember…
But the establishment hated Corbyn and Labour had an impossible Brexit position.
With those things behind us why can't Starmer offer a better alternative? And we now have the baggage of an even more damaged society.
Just make the arguments stronger - do battle with the failed elements of Capitalism!
I just think there's too much throwing in the towel going off and subservience to the establishment class.
I don't think because one leader has failed that the evidence is lacking of a failed state - and the will for change.
When the Centrists get eaten up during a recession things might be very different.
It's not as if we're short of things to point out that are broken either.
Evidence lines the way.
Exactly – Corbyn offered a better alternative and look what happened.
I think the attacks from within his own party did more damage than anything the MSM threw at him.
The Labour Party showed they have no interest in representing the best interests of the populace with that little debacle.
You'd think so but I looked at the 2023 council election results for Rutland, out of 27 seats the Tories got 7. Blimey we had to escape from there to the socialist republic of S.Yorks. If it can happen there, there world's your lobster.
More so in the older generations and they tend to favour the Tory party *and* actually get out and vote
The younger generations might get out to vote more if they were given a better reason to vote for something other than "suck it up petal, you have to pay for the economic mismanagement of the generations that went before you, tough luck if asset inflation means you can never buy a home, invest in a pension or get a stake in life, what do you mean you want the employment protection that your parents had, don't be such a snowflake get out there and earn your crust in the gig economy".
Worth a look.
Worth a look.
Study undertaken where which voting systems were in place?
A simple presentation here showing why when if you don't spend on the needed things - expect poor outcomes.
And absolutely why the concern of lowering national debt will kill growth and thus the wider economy.
You'd think these idiots - Starmer and Sunak would have noticed by now the correlation between growth and government spending.
Lower investment, national debt (the country's savings) = a dying economy.
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1745116163015655883?t=fwlhxGLbBPHT-IYcyDhhJg&s=19
Put simply lower national debt - lower growth.
Did any see the piss poor Rachel Reeves out on the town Tory tax talk? It was ****ing terrible.
Rachel Reeves 'misspoke' in tax rises claim
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67892958
This is what happens when you are essentially arguing over nothing.
'misspoke'.
It's a good job the Tories are terrible.
Deleted post. Bad formatting for some reason.
Just saw a party political broadcast by Labour on ITV1.
They really are preparing for a May election aren't they?
They have to. Even if it isn’t.
Candidate selection is progressing with that assumption, we voted for ours just before Christmas… and some seats who selected earlier are pushing on with leafleting and doorstepping as if it could be an election anytime. The Tories will vastly out spend everyone else nationally… so having people doing what they can locally… as often and for as long as possible, is the only way for the other parties to try and bring some balance to the campaigns.
There are local elections in May in many areas anyway, no matter what Sunak says. He can’t avoid voters completely. So campaigning won’t be wasted.
Reeves being on the 'side' of people in Davos. She really is Capitalist dim wit.
"We wouldn't do anything with tax to deter that investment"
This is basically nonsense; anyone with half a brain knows most investment comes before tax is applied. And becomes tax deductable irrespective.
All of these people need basic accountancy lessons.
She actually should be saying the opposite we will offer incentives for investment.
"The lifeblood of economic growth is private investment."
Toss. Utter toss
I really hope the JPmorgan breakfast she attended leaves a bitter after taste.