Forum menu
Starmer should know there is no bank account at the BoE or the Treasury that saves money up for the government to spend from tax receipts.
No one said there was. But pretending that levels and types of tax revenue does not affect what the government can do isn't honest. Using language people understand is basic politics. Most voters simply are not economists, and short hand will be used. There is a choice to be made between tax cuts for the rich and public spending.
It's pretty obvious the Conservatives are setting a trap here, forcing Labour to admit they will raise taxes after an election... [or more likely to announce that they will not implement specific tax cuts proposed by the Tories, but it'll be painted by the incumbents and in the press as raising taxes]. I suspect Labour will end up promising their own "tax cuts" to counter this... by raising thresholds... paired with increasing taxes elsewhere. Any incoming government will likely end up increasing the overall tax take, while seeking to reduce personal taxation for some. It's who get's the hit, and who gets the help, that'll form the real battle over taxation come an election.
https://twitter.com/implausibleblog/status/1750612359251460413?t=-OL2hqjUIn4v8A9GWmw4IQ&s=1
Absolutely terrible journalism.
The institutional lies that surround this are so so much bigger than the lies called out over Brexit.
Even at a basic level are these people totally stupid? Where do they think money comes from? The private sector counterfeiting?
We are crippled into believing we can't have anything because of this one lie and I knew it would fall on Labour who clearly weren't going to push back on a Neoliberal narrative.
The establishment wants you to suffer at the expense of the top asset holders.
Starmer commenting on social media clips of people being shot in Gaza (specifically guy with a white surrender flag clip) - and having two different view points about civilians deaths depending if it was Ukraine or Gaza.
https://twitter.com/StephenFlynnSNP/status/1750605469196914766?t=jTE9h9j5S4HjWOEIGKIxuA&s=19
But the again he's not along - plenty of agro-centrists seem to enjoy this sort of justification. Reminds of the whole WMD exceptionalism.
Starmer is a ****ing spineless gibbon
He is getting worse by the week. Hope the election is not pushed too far out as god knows how crap he will be by September.
Let's play a game, STW or Qanon?
Calm down, it's all part of The Plan, everyone with any sense knows what he REALLY means.
Bit unfair on the gibbon, he always looks like a rabbit in the headlights.
The level of intolerance in the Labour Party is now truly scary imo, and not least because in a few months time it will be the party of government.
A Labour MP now gets suspended for saying:
there was an ‘“international duty” to remember the victims of the Holocaust, as well as “more recent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and now Gaza”.
Which are precisely the sort of sentiments which you would expect any political party with a commitment to compassion, humanity, and peace, to support.
On the other hand a Labour Party member who claims that a far-right racist government has the right to cut off water supplies to desperate and dying civilians, in blatant violation of international law, looks to become prime minister in a few months time.
British politics really is in the gutter.
Yeah, that above. I don’t know what we get out of supporting Israel, it’s got a highly corrupt leadership, openly racist and genocidal members of government that is totally odds with most liberal western values, openly intimidates and lobbys western representives. It’s not an ally it’s a liability in its current form, I have no idea what’s he’s thinking?
Its a result of all the fake nonsense about antisemitism. That nonsense has achieved its aim - made it impossible for anyone in the labour party to criticise Israel for any reason.
I would guess that her general political profile would be to the left of centre, and therefore not in line with the mandates being dictated by central office. She is probably quite distraught that her comments could be taken as antisemitism, which is why this ritual public humiliation as punishment for anyone who speaks out against Israeli's atrocities is so affective.
Surely the whole point of holocaust day is to look at the moment in history and make sure it should never happen again, not to create a hierarchy of atrocity with which nothing else is seen as being so bad and can therefore be brushed under the carpet.
Any chance of a campaign to get Labour voters to vote green or Lib Dem in Karmer's constituency and Green to vote Labour in Kate Osamor's contituency.
I might get a vote in a UK election for the first time ever if promises are kept. Not having a fixed abode and poll tax got in the way of registering when I lived in the UK, I didn't have a residence to leave when I left and lost rights about 20 years ago anyhow. I'd like someone I could vote for with conviction, Karmer isn't that person, Kate Osamor might be.
Israel have always played the anti-semite card and continue to do so. The UK don't seem to want to challenge that. Corbyn of course did and he appeared to be right didn't he but look what happened there.
Wonder what the UK support of Israel is like across the voters?
Wonder what the UK support of Israel is like across the voters?
Not as strong as Starmer's support it would appear. According to a YouGov poll 76% supported an immediate ceasefire and only 8% were opposed.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1715027375354749384
I really can't get my head round the fact that the Labour Party has suspended an MP for saying that the slaughter of civilians, mostly women and children, is genocide, a claim which the International Court of Justice a few days ago described as "plausible".
They suspended her because she knew exactly what she was doing releasing that statement on Holocaust Memorial Day, she is not a fan of the labour leadership and like others, trying to bring this issue to the fore again and make Starmer take action.
trying to bring this issue to the fore again and make Starmer take action.
She forced Starmer to take action? And what was this issue that she was trying to bring "to the fore again" - you don't think people were speaking about what is currently happening in Gaza?
Of course she knew exactly what she was saying when she said there was an international duty to remember the victims of the Holocaust, as well as “more recent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and now Gaza”. You make it sound as if it was a really terrible thing to say which deserves suspension from the Parliamentary Labour Party.
She didn't say it on International Holocaust Memorial Day btw, she said it the day before to remind everyone of the importance of remembering the Holocaust.
And it is of course extremely important to remember, which is why I posted a reminder on STW - I don't think you did argee.
Ah, I have just discovered why Starmer probably felt that he should suspend another black female MP committed to fighting racism, because the Mail on Sunday pretty much told him to do so in their latest editorial:
I look forward to the current Daily Mail influenced Prime Minister being replaced in a few months time by another Daily Mail influenced Prime Minister.
*agrees with Ernie, feels dirty for agreeing with Ernie, but sometimes Ernie is right* 😉
Edit: all you posts on this page, Ernie.
They suspended her because she knew exactly what she was doing releasing that statement on Holocaust Memorial Day, she is not a fan of the labour leadership and like others, trying to bring this issue to the fore again and make Starmer take action.<br /><br />
Yet more revisionism. Even the Guardian article linked to contradicts itself:<br /><br />'The Labour MP Kate Osamor has had the whip suspended while she is investigated for saying Gaza should be remembered as a genocide on Holocaust Memorial Day.
The MP for Edmonton in north London is due to meet party whips on Monday after issuing an apology over the message she sent on the eve of the day marking the murder of 6 million Jews during the second world war."<br />
So the facts are that she didn't make the comment on Holocaust Memorial Day.
It is vital that the atrocities committed by the Nazis be remembered, but it is also vital that any memorial also commemorate the deaths of all the Roma, Sinti, Slavs, people with disabilities, those with dissenting political opinions etc. By far the largest group murdered were of course Jews, but the term 'holocaust' should not be used simply to involve one group alone. It was a crime against all of Humanity. So I can't see how Kate Osamor's comments were in any way 'offensive'. I think what is far more offensive to the current Labour leadership, is that Osamor is a Black woman who dares to speak out against the actions of a fascistic regime, one which the leadership has clearly allied itself with. But with the failure to address the disgusting abuse of Diane Abbot and other Labour MPs of colour, and Starmer's failure to acknowledge the Forde report, this is yet another example of how this leadership really isn't committed to traditional Labour values of fighting racism and fascism. Yet another reason why I will not be voting for this party under its current leadership.
https://twitter.com/RachelReevesMP/status/1750916668518285685?t=qRAjx_dDbWhOfGFD2QT_nQ&s=19
Can a senior MP for the Labour party really be this simple and cram so much stupidity into one tweet?
The financial sector and firepower in one sentence?
Let's be clear the financial sector is a support service and wealth extractor.
How about the real fire power of the state that can issue its own currency - particularly on things of desperate need - that will actually generate the growth they want.
Reeves is full of second-hand 90s Tory guff - it's this sorted of reheated deregulation language that helped create the chaos of the last Labour government - courting the nonsense of wealth creation by the private sector.
Can't believe she's going with this.
(Well I can.)
There are things wrong with our country which need fixing. This is the wrong place to look and more evidence of an economically very right-wing Labour party - that also appears to have few new ideas.
She really is is ****ing awful. Guessing she is in a very safe Labour seat unfortunately.
I find it fascinating where the Tories dare go Labour dare follow.
Another day another Streeting being a ****.
https://twitter.com/SkyPoliticsHub/status/1752059704233124087?s=20
Labour front bench is shaping up to be the most terrible of Christmas presents.
She really is is **** awful. Guessing she is in a very safe Labour seat unfortunately.
Leeds West - looks to be. She's been there a while too.
Well as much miss I cannot look at David Cameron he seems to have been the catalyst for Streeting and co to flip their verbal script on Gaza.
Last week.
https://twitter.com/jrc1921/status/1750880543141417340?t=RhdXSyeEgJyjxgswuXiHDQ&s=19
So this week Streeting and others:
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1752402690397577663?t=XTfiwPJ0pl7iIN62jE6Vcg&s=19
Oct 23
https://twitter.com/RachelReevesMP/status/1719297557442986189?t=Wlog_9oZZ6JPHeDYaRPZMg&s=19
Now
https://twitter.com/RachelReevesMP/status/1752597926621196435?t=9H5-01U39spD0OEHiM_QZA&s=19
“The cap on bankers’ bonuses was bought in in the aftermath of the global financial crisis and that was the right thing to do to rebuild the public finances,” she told the BBC. “But that has gone now and we don’t have any intention of bringing that back"
I don't think Reeves even checks what's she's said before. It's being made up on the spot. Bankers bonuses don't affect the public finances but do create distributional problems with wealth especially as we are still in a cost of living crisis. And there's the reliance on a wealth extracter to apparently generate value. Total dumb ass economics, especially when you read about the deliberate underfunding of the NHS.
You seen - with the Tories being absurd it leaves little space to notice how totally and utterly reckless Labour are being.
If only the screaming and screeching of the Sunak thread which looks like it will be long gone soon - was transferred to its pathetic likely replacement then we might make critical progress.
I despaired when I heard that this morning. It's not as if this is even controversial to any but 0.001% of the population. I don't know the mechanics of it and I'm sure it was a fairly easy thing to get around if you're in that world so it's probably an irrelevant rule/law but the "optics" of this are terrible.
Who's side are they on?
Bankers bonuses don’t affect the public finances
Actually they should have done, negatively (in the short term anyway).
The point was to try and put the bankers off risky short term behaviour for personal profit.
Its effectiveness can be debated since it just got turned into higher salaries.
That is a spectacular U-turn rone, and over just three months, even by the U-turning standards of Starmer's "New Labour on steroids".
And Reeves is not stupid enough to believe that bankers bonuses affect public finances so her comment concerning the need to "rebuild the public finances" was obviously said without thinking.
I guess that when you constantly lie you will occasionally say things that very obviously make no sense at all.
Actually they should have done, negatively (in the short term anyway>The point was to try and put the bankers off risky short term behaviour for personal profit
For clarity they don't affect the government's capacity to spend.
That's all I meant - for sure there are loads of other problems associated with them.
Rachel Reeves is getting me down currently - she's says nothing progressive and dresses it all up in fake economic language.
I tried to get on LBC the other day to challenge her on a few things.
No beuno.
The point was to try and put the bankers off risky short term behaviour for personal profit.
Its effectiveness can be debated since it just got turned into higher salaries.
As you say, it wasn't about keeping pay low, it was about not rewarding risk... and it is still needed, and really needs to be kept in line with other financial hubs to prevent a race to the bottom... a race we should have been seeking to avoid by keeping our bonus caps in line with most of Europe, and pushing for the USA and European outliers to match the caps. Perhaps Reeves thinks we're now past the point where we can bring caps back without triggering an exodus... if so, I hope (and think) she's wrong, and the caps should return... she risks sending the wrong signal to those that prefer greater risk taking (a risk that we then all take on as a country, as history has shown).
Who’s side are they on?
Rachel Reeves used to work for the Bank of England. Who's side do you think she's on?
I'm just catching PMQs and the argument is ludicrous.
I don't mind Starmer criticising mortgage rates - if Labour were likely to offer solutions any different to the Tories.
Both parties subscribe to the idea of BoEs independence farce - so what exactly would Labour do?
Neither party is will to instruct the BoE to reduce rates which would be at least half of a solution. (They could do this.)
And yet again interest rates haven't been going up since the Truss budget. It's a lie.
Labour don't need to lie to make a point.
They are both 3rd rate Neoliberals supporting the same system. Sunak just took Reeves to task over the cap too.
This is what comes of arguing Tory narrative.
Labour don’t need to lie to make a point.
I think all labour are doing is lying and nothing else. Rachel Reeves is a classic example. She worked as an economist at the Bank of England. No one can tell me that she doesn't know how the system works. That it requires govt investment/spending to drive economic activity and growth and then taxes are levied to control inflation. Yet in public she says the direct opposite, pretending that growth is driven by the private sector (presumably with magic money that it finds down the back of the sofa) and taxes levied on that growth then fund public spending.
Either she was completely incompetent at her job, or she's not telling the truth. My strong suspicion is that behind closed doors the business barons and bankers have told them that they will tolerate more spending and taxes in order to fix things and generate growth, as long as labour do their bit to perpetuate the myth that the free market enables it rather than it being the result of govt activism. Labour will then hide that spending using various accounting tricks and PR misdirection, and then claim they were right when growth improves. It's a win-win - Labour win power, the economy improves, and the business and financial establishment remain unhindered by govt.
Labour will then hide that spending using various accounting tricks and PR misdirection, and then claim they were right when growth improves. It’s a win-win – Labour win power, the economy improves, and the business and financial establishment remain unhindered by govt.
I'm not totally sold on that - but I'm not totally against the logic either.
I mean - it would be simpler just to have a plan - a progressive plan. Someone has to ultimately change the narrative otherwise it's just another Tory shit-show with a bit less shit.
They are going to want to keep power too so that to me means they will always be challenged with anything that is remotely in need of proper investment. The words 'borrowing' and 'national debt' need challenging for this reason.
Easier just to tell the truth - and I'm not so sure she knows how things work - I mean FFS the Governer of the BoE has a history degree. They just operate as puppet to the goverment. The BoE exist to make the government's life easier. There's no pragmatic reason currently for high interest rates as you very well know. The BoE has no current paper linking high-interest rates as a solution to high inflation for instance; but they do these daft things because they've always done them - not because there has been any new evidential modelling. In fact 9 times out of 10 - inflation is a supply problem. It's very rarely attributed to money supply - and I know lots of you get this.
It's the exact opposite of pragmatism.
The only thing that I know of that validates how the monetary system really works from the BoE's perspective - is the guys that did the 'Accounting Model of the UK Exchequer' paper (i.e self-financing state) - did a presentation to some BoE bigwigs, and they didn't disagree with its contents. Hell yeah. But basically didn't say much about it either.
Ultimately it's going to come down to - do we let the World burn just because someone made up the fact we don't have any money left (Hey we own the BoE - the source of moneyness) but apparently we need the private sector to counterfeit wealth into existence!
It's the most bizaree thing I've every countered. And Reeves is a bad 'un.
That it requires govt investment/spending to drive economic activity and growth and then taxes are levied to control inflation. Yet in public she says the direct opposite, pretending that growth is driven by the private sector (presumably with magic money that it finds down the back of the sofa) and taxes levied on that growth then fund public spending
You make my point - it's damn clear when you use the former part of your logic.
All the trouble starts when you start to explain it from a the perspective of a phoney Capitalist who wants to contort the hell out of what is a very logical system where the £ is the way the government provisions itself.
Framed easily - money has to be spent into existence by the currency issuer before you can pay your taxes !
I mean you can't borrow something until it has been created can you? So the nonsense of borrowing is even more stupid.
I mean – it would be simpler just to have a plan – a progressive plan.
It would, yes. But the finance and business establishment won't like that, because it will change the narrative that the free market is king and it'll be the thin end of the wedge leading us back to state ownership, redistribution and regulated capital markets. Better for them to perpetuate the myth whilst allowing a labour govt to quietly fix the economy and public services. It's a trap really, because Labour will go along with it, and when they succeed* the narrative will then be that all this stuff is fixable without massive govt spending, laying the ground for the privatisation of the crown jewels.
*And they will succeed, because things are so f**** that they can't really fail. When you're at the bottom there's only one direction to go.
Well when you in factor in the lag on economic metrics and the devastation we have in public services, plus the climate crisis - I don't think Labour will get anywhere near - especially based on how they're talking.
I think there's possibly still the late problems of interest rates to unfold yet with fixed mortgages expiring. (Yep the stock market has been doing fine.)
Labour would have to be fully on board with huge investment to even get close to doing anything good in the next 5 years.
I'd say we're not at the bottom.
The UK hasn't done what Biden has done with an economic stimulus - and the USA has managed to do well with growth because of this, and yet Trump is still looking good.
I dunno - I'm way past predictions but if Labour don't sort their attitude out within the first 100 days - god knows what comes next.
You're more positive than me Daz!
When someone on the right of Labour thinks Labour aren't being progressive enough.
Normally McTernan would send me in a spin but he's pointing out the obvious here.
Labour should fight back politically. It has to win the hearts of the voters as well as their minds. You do that by standing for something and showing voters you will stick to it. Not by running from everything. Great parties have great purposes and hewing to Tory spending rules isn’t a great purpose.
You’re more positive than me Daz!
I wouldn't go as far as positive! I think mostly I'm grasping at straws to explain what on the surface looks inexplicable. I get the need to not scare off moderate voters and reassure the business community, but Reeves is going way beyond that. If Labour really does stick to what they're saying and continue tory austerity then they'll have lost my vote forever. I'm in an ultra-marginal and will be voting for the labour candidate (mostly cos he's on one of the cycling whatsapp groups I'm on!) but I'll be making it clear to him what everyone expects, and it's not this.
I think mostly I’m grasping at straws to explain what on the surface looks inexplicable.
I think your explanation is a good. Labour are trying to ensure they keep everyone happy so they don't ruin their chances when it comes to the election and load of people revert to Tory votes because they have never felt happy voting Labour.
I don't think it's just an election plan either... they aim to govern for "everyone" as well I strongly suspect... for example heavily investing in the switch to renewables, without telling the private sector (and those that revere/value it) that there is no place for them in that industry. Ideologues won't be any happier after the election than before... I don't think this is a bait and switch... it's more public investment and encouraging private investment. I think they mean what they say.
I think they mean what they say.
If that’s true there’s no point in voting for them. You’re persuading me!
LOL!
You don't want more public investment?
The one single thing we have all learnt about Sir Keir Starmer since he became leader of the Labour Party is that he never says what he means.
We only know what he is saying this week.
You don’t want more public investment?
Where is it coming from and how is it being spent?
An obvious example is the tee side debacle. Are you in favour of the state taking all the risk and private companies pocketing all the cash?
How is this private investment being encouraged and how is it being checked to ensure we are getting value for money from it. Something which is always problematic with the centrist ideologues since they generally buy into the free market myth.
An obvious example is the tee side debacle.
Are we blaming Keir Starmer for that now?
How both the government and private sector invest, and who profits from it, is obviously key... the absolute values invested or spent are not all that matters (as events of recent years, with VIP lanes and £1 land purchases make very clear).
You don’t want more public investment?
What public investment? If you take Reeves at her word there won't be any. I'm operating on the assumption/hope that her word is bollocks and designed only for electioneering purposes. If they mean what they say though as you suggest then balanced budgets and further cuts in public spending will be the order of the day.
If you take Reeves at her word there won’t be any.
That isn't what has been said.
Increases in investment and increases in day to day spending are both proposed. The former through "borrowing" (don't Rone, we know what's meant by that) and the later paired with tax changes.
We're looping again now.
That isn’t what has been said.
I can't keep up TBH. Reeves comes out with a random new announcement every day and Starmer doesn't seem to have a clue what his economic policies are other than 'ask Rachel'. Honestly if you look at what Reeves says and didn't know it was her you'd be forgiven for thinking it was Kwasi Kwarteng. Quite frankly labour's economic policies are all over the place, and the messaging is even worse. Even the most economically ignorant voters can work out that more investment doesn't go with balanced budgets and no tax rises.
That isn’t what has been said.
Reeves says fiscal rules sit above eveything.
Heard her on LBC.
She garbled her words on borrowing for investment. She cannot articulate what you think she is saying.
It's bullshit Kelvin. They absolutely do not know what to say or offer up because they're terrified of saying anything remotely progressive, which means they make stuff up to suit.
And what's worse is - fiscal rules don't mean anything. It means nothing.
For what it's worth borrowing for investment is shit ten times over. You know they don't borrow to spend and that terminology is damaging the fabric of what needs to be done.
Like I say - have a plan - tell the truth.
The fact none of us can tell you exactly what's going off - tells you everything.
But Kelvin, you do an awful good job of trying to pull the crumbs from an offering of nothing.
Starmer and Reeves have done nothing but disappoint - the fact you can somehow manage to see catalyst of hope every single time Reeves puts the boot in on another possible idea - is beyond me.
None of this is necessary and I really hope that Labour get a good kicking in the likes of Streeting's constituency. I really do because they don't actually deserve the support.
Are we blaming Keir Starmer for that now?
wtf are you on about?
I know its hard being a supporter of someone almost as much of a uturning liar as Sunak but you could at least try.
Perhaps best to resort to the "a vote for anyone but the glorious leader is a vote for tories".
The former through “borrowing” (don’t Rone, we know what’s meant by that) and the later paired with tax changes.
Clearly a lot of people don't though.
They still believe the private sector funds the government - hence my total disdain of that wording. But I know you know what it means.
You have to absolutely create a big deficit to fill a state hole this big - there is no way around it. The wealthy have sucked too much money out of everything. No point lying about it.
Or just accept the current decay.
Just tell the public they're not on the hook for the 'debt.' And they're not.
How much of a problem is governmet debt versus the criticial future of our environment - it shouldn't even need saying. Basic stuff. But that's where Labour have gone. From earlier - even John Mcternan lays it out clearly!
I’m operating on the assumption/hope that her word is bollocks and designed only for electioneering purposes.
IMO that is very much a possibility, especially when faced with an overwhelming crisis which considering the state of the economy they will inherit is a perfectly possible scenario.
It is worth remembering that Gordon Brown did not hesitate for a moment to pump billions into UK banks despite his previous commitment to neoliberalism and deregulation.
Furthermore I am not sure why some people seem to assume that Keir Starmer is only lying when he is saying something vaguely left-wing and always telling the truth when giving his approval for right-wing Tory policies.
The only thing that is certain about Starmer is that he is a persistent liar. No one can be sure what his policies will be when he is PM beyond that they will be geared towards what best benefits him. Which of course includes, among other things, history remembering him kindly.
Not long to wait to find out now - more than likely 3 or 4 months.
It is worth remembering that Gordon Brown did not hesitate for a moment to pump billions into UK banks despite his previous commitment to neoliberalism and deregulation
That's one and the same though isn't it? (And yes the banking system of course needed saving.)
State support for the financial system - tally ho!
I don't think Reeves would have a problem with that direction either.
Furthermore I am not sure why some people seem to assume that Keir Starmer is only lying when he is saying something vaguely left-wing and always telling the truth when giving his approval for right-wing Tory policies.
Because that's been the direction of travel.
Closet tree-hugger? Lol.
I do agree there are a lot of wait and sees, but they're going to want to retain power and that means keeping with the establishment line.
That’s one and the same though isn’t it?
Only because neoliberalism doesn't work - the market is not always right. Even the exponents of the failed theory know that.
But pumping billions into banking was definitely at odds with the stated policies of neoliberalism.
I do agree there are a lot of wait and sees, but they’re going to want to retain power and that means keeping with the establishment line.
I think it is fair to say that my expectations are rather low.
But I would not be particularly surprised if he was either less right-wing than he currently appears to be, or in fact even more right-wing. Nothing about Starmer surprises me.
especially when faced with an overwhelming crisis which considering the state of the economy they will inherit is a perfectly possible scenario.
I'll go as far as making a prediction that when they enter govt, within weeks they'll hold an emergency budget on the grounds that the state of the economy and public services are much worse than they thought and they'll throw out all the austerity stuff in favour of some form of public sector bailout. In reality they'll copy what Biden has done, but they'll use the crisis narrative (bankrupt councils for example) to justify it.
But pumping billions into banking was definitely at odds with the stated policies of neoliberalism.
But not with how it is consistently practiced around the world.
Because that’s been the direction of travel.
That got me thinking about the direction of travel and whether it was always from left to right.
There certainly seems to be a persistent pattern..... the Tories announce a reactionary right-wing policy, Starmer and his team denounce the policy and castigate the Tories for it, a little while later Starmer quietly reassures Tory voters that a Labour government won't reverse the policy, and repeat.
It is as if Starmer and his front bench are so piss-poor and ineffective in opposing right-wing Tory policies that they can't even convince themselves that they are right, never mind the electorate.
The only example I can think of Starmer moving in the opposite right to left direction was during the Labour leadership contest - there he went in a very short space of time from being a fairly right-wing centrist member of the Labour Party to a radical lefty espousing the "moral case for socialism".
Yep, you simply can't trust him. Very likely to be the Tory attack line and they have plenty of examples to use.
It is as if Starmer and his front bench are so piss-poor and ineffective in opposing right-wing Tory policies that they can’t even convince themselves that they are right, never mind the electorate.
Take-the-bait politics for me.
The thing that frustrates me over and over - is it shouldn't be hard to argue the Tories out of existence! Look at the damage! But when your arguments are similar to theirs - its totally counter-intuitive to be on the opposite side.
Anyway I feel the pain on this Sheffield Professor's sound bite - dealing with fiscal rules and headroom as totally ludicrous concept.
https://twitter.com/UKandEU/status/1752656948984467948?s=20
Or an alternate viewpoint which I'm sure you lot won't accept is that by pushing the Tories further right it allows Starmer and Labour to cover more of the electorate and become a government. Labour has always had the problem that it doesn't appeal to enough people, hence a majority Tory governments. You can be ideologically pure or you can be a party of government. Anyway we've been around and around these arguments and frankly Starmer and Labour high commend don't care about voters on the far left of the party, they are in a tiny minority and shifting policy to appease them will alienate a large proportion of the electorate. To be electable Labour need to be centrist with a whiff of left leaning. If that doesn't work for you vote for the electable left wing party of your choice to be in government, oh wait there aren't any.
You don't need to argue the Tories out of existence, you just need for their voters to get so dismayed that they don't turn out.
The main reason that we don't have more Labour governments is mostly because the Lib Dems and Greens either don't understand the implications of a first past the post system or don't care, and repeatedly split the left wing vote to the detriment of all.
Or an alternate viewpoint which I’m sure you lot won’t accept is that by pushing the Tories further right it allows Starmer and Labour to cover more of the electorate
Aside from it doesnt achieve this though does it? It results in the centre right and hard right being represented but those on the left not having representation. At some point you have to chose policies which suits one group but not the other.
Obviously the centre right having ****ed up the country and their own party now want labour as compensation for the party loss but want to keep the same policies ****ed the country rather than learning from their mistakes.
You can be ideologically pure or you can be a party of government
BINGO! Sadly though the tories have demonstrated this to be nonsense.
To be electable Labour need to be centrist with a whiff of left leaning
This only works since the left are less ideological pure that the centrists and are willing to compromise.
If labour go as hard right to appeal to people like you then the left may chose otherwise.
If that doesn’t work for you vote for the electable left wing party of your choice to be in government, oh wait there aren’t any.
Double BINGO. The cry of the centrist extremist who is utterly incapable of any compromise and is deluded into thinking they are the majority.
Willing to compromise...
To be electable Labour need to be centrist with a whiff of left leaning.
But what are they left leaning on? It just seems to be "we'll carry on doing everything the Tories are doing but more boringly. So we'll still paint over the kids murals at the asylum seeker processing centre, but we'll do it sensibly rather than gleefully".
Which Labour politician has indicated that they agreed to... "paint over the kids murals at the asylum seeker processing centre"... or is this more blaming Labour for things a Tory government have done (and Labour opposed)?
can be ideologically pure or you can be a party of government
I love this one.
What's more ideologically pure they following the failed status quo?
I'm sorry this is a ridiculous notion that someone started somewhere without being aware of our current useless and failed ideology of choice - which Starmer wants to jump in bed with.
It's not in the least bit pragmatic because it's delivered awful results by just about every metric going.
Also the idea that the Centre must be the sensible position is for the birds. Just because it happens to sit between two points doesn't make it somehow about right if the two points themselves are bad!
Willing to compromise…
Yes.
You know by voting for the centre right new labour and also, under Corbyn, having centre right mps in the shadow cabinet until they threw a hissy fit, being unable to compromise their ideological beliefs.
I know its hard for ideologues like yourself but try and think about the last time those on the right of labour made a compromise.
To Labour I mean and not the tories/right wing rags.
Oh, yes... plenty of people on the left in Labour compromising all the time... I just found that phrase amusing in the context of this ranty thread...
Good dissection of Labours u-turn on bonuses by Politics Joe, I hope someone has tied a rope to Reeve's ankles as she is in danger of completely disappearing up the bankers arses
Centrists = Conservatism without the screaming.
Take a look how bad Conservatism has performed across the country. It leads to devastatingly poor outcomes.
So many elements that they use to measure how successful the economy is working - flawed and built on rickety logic. With little evidence to support it.
Inflation target of 2% - made up.
Inflation control by interest rate adjustment - virtually no evidence, unless you kill an economy.
State spending always causes inflation but private spending doesn't - bollocks.
The private sector funds the state - abject nonsense.
Growth by tax cuts - how come we aren't growing then?
Don't burden our children with the national debt - doesn't happen, It rolls over for the government deal with.
There is no money left - oh right.
I mean come on.
It's a just an ever lasting list of absolute back to front crap that has been repeated by successive governments to our detriment that Starmer is also selling us
Its like shooting fish in a barrel, nearly all the usual suspects biting after one post.
Theres nothing idealogical pure about centrists and
This only works since the left are less ideological pure that the centrists and are willing to compromise.
Genuine LOLs you really dont live in the real world do you?
The cry of the centrist extremist who is utterly incapable of any compromise and is deluded into thinking they are the majority.
Did you really type that with a straight face, centrists by the very definition are in the centre, not the extremes of politics, and have you ever heard of a bell curve? This thread is like arguing with Covid deniers and 5G nuts. Chemtrails anyone?
Yep, you simply can’t trust him. Very likely to be the Tory attack line and they have plenty of examples to use.
For sure but I reckon that the Tories have been keeping their powder dry for when the general election is on full swing for this :
But some Labour Party insiders have reservations about this approach, with one telling Sky News: "If your record involves as many controversies as Keir Starmer, it's probably not great political strategy to draw attention to it."
Senior Tory sources say they believe Sir Keir's past is a vulnerability they can exploit, having identified a number of examples they think will change the public's view of the Labour leader.
"There's a lot of material out there," a senior Conservative source explains.
Depending on what the Tories dig up and how it is presented that could imo have a devastating effect on how well Labour does in the general election.
Labour benefits hugely from the fact that the electorate knows very little about Starmer and are fairly indifferent towards him - they mostly know that he is not a Tory politician and but not much else.
If the Tories correctly paint him as untrustworthy and effectively point out that not every decision the Crown Prosecution Service made under his watch was great, which would obviously undermine his judgement skills, it could cause a serious upset for Labour.
centrists by the very definition are in the centre, not the extremes of politics
No they are not. Centrists are right-wingers who claim to be middle-of-the-road moderates. They are certainly intolerant and extreme - you probably are probably represent an excellent example.
You certainly sound pretty extreme in your intolerance of those who are unhappy about Labour aping the Tories. In your latest outburst, for example, you are making a comparison between people who don't totally agree with you and, quote, "Covid deniers and 5G nuts".
Centrists = Conservatism without the screaming.
It's such a blinkered and binary way of looking at things, comparing exteme left and extreme right.
No they are not. Centrists are right-wingers who claim to be middle-of-the-road moderates.
Abject nonsence.
The political compass is a slightly more usefull tool, but still very narrow in scope if you are forced to put only one dot on the chart.
In reality you should be asked a thousand different questions, with a dot for each, so you'd end up with more of a scatter graph/heat map.
For example I'd describe myself as fairly centrist, but that doesn't paint the full picture, I'd probably end up with something like this:
(picture for illustration purposes only, it's not accurate, I knocked it up in 30 seconds)
Starmer and Labour high commend don’t care about voters on the far left of the party
Those of us on the left know this and are far from worrying about it. What we do want though is for labour to serve the needs of working people rather than the top few percent. I think most of us would be fine with that, but it’s a long way from where labour currently are.
It’s such a blinkered and binary way of looking at things, comparing exteme left and extreme right.
Lol we didn't invent the system. And neither would I call it extreme necessarily when presented as the way you have.
Centrists accept Neoliberal framing - all the evidence you need is out there in Starmer's wishy washy way of offering up conservative policy.
I mean, we are walking right into trickle-down - again but within a Labour presentation.
So it's okay apparently.