Forum menu
What we do want though is for labour to serve the needs of working people
Well that doesnt appear to be what working people (as most voters fit in this category) want from Labour based on the polls, at least not your idea of helping working people. And if Labour doesnt represent your views go vote for a party that does, oh yeah been there before. Might as well whine that you want the Tories to care about anybody other than themselves but that ain't happening either.
They are certainly intolerant and extreme – you probably are probably represent an excellent example.
Lets not start flinging insults and getting personal, even if that does seem to be a left wing trait. FWIW each time ive done the moral compass thing Ive come out middle bottom left, yes surprised me but there you are.
Lol we didn’t invent the system
Maybe not but you all seem very keen to define other people and other them. Its almost like the left are scared of the centrists so demonise them even more than the right.
Maybe not but you all seem very keen to define other people and other them. Its almost like the left are scared of the centrists so demonise them even more than the right.
The urge to pigeonhole peoples entire political view by some is frustrating... it's as if you are not Corbyn, then you automaticaly must be Darth Vader.
Lets not start flinging insults and getting personal, even if that does seem to be a left wing trait.
Start?
You:
This thread is like arguing with Covid deniers and 5G nuts. Chemtrails anyone?
So that wasn't intended as an insult? Making a comparison between those who have a different point of view to you on this thread with "Covid deniers and 5G nuts" was perfectly reasonable?
*Centrist is a hypocrite shocker*
This thread is like arguing with Covid deniers and 5G nuts. Chemtrails anyone?
Wow amazing.
I think we do pretty well here actually.
Back on track as Binners likes to say:
Rachel Reeves "I think income taxes are too high on working people. can't make any promises about reducing income tax. " Etc.
Also Reeves "we're going to keep corp tax at 25%."
It's just one big churn of bullshit.
Willing to compromise…
Thousands of us compromised when we elected Starmer as leader. In return, he reneged on everything he promised.
Thousands of us compromised when we elected Starmer as leader. In return, he reneged on everything he promised.
That's a internal partisan labour issue, Vote lib dem or green if you don't like it.
I'm naturally a Lib dem voter, but I think I'm going to have to vote labour this time around, but purely on the basis of kicking to conservatives out, I'm not happy about it, by any means, but I'm not blind, either.
That’s a internal partisan labour issue, Vote lib dem or green if you don’t like it.
Not trusting someone who says one thing and does another is hardly partisan.
I see they're ditching the £28bn green pledge now. The tosspots.
I see they’re ditching the £28bn green pledge now. The tosspots.
Aye. It’s their second most popular policy too. The obvious counter-argument to people complaining about how much it’ll cost is what inaction will cost, not abandoning the policy.
I see they’re ditching the £28bn green pledge now. The tosspots.
That's crap, I totally agree, we should 'be firing on all cylinders' to go greener, if you'll excuse the ironic metaphore.
I'll more than likey vote labour purely on the basis as in thier current form, they are not quite as bat shit crazy as the conservatives, it's that simple.
My vote, won't be a vote for labour, it will be a vote to remove the conservatives.
Thousands of us compromised when we elected Starmer as leader. In return, he reneged on everything he promised.
That’s a internal partisan labour issue, Vote lib dem or green if you don’t like it.
What a weird comment. Why should someone who gets a vote in Labour Party leadership elections be told to vote for another political party if they are unhappy that their man renegaded on his promises?
Why should someone who gets a vote in Labour Party leadership elections be told to vote for another political party if they are unhappy that their man renegaded on his promises?
I'm not telling you to do anything, simply pointing out that other poitical parties are available.
their man renegaded on his promises?
Are you new to politics? that's a rhetorical question, no need to answer! 😉
I’ll more than likey vote labour purely on the basis as in thier current form, they are not quite as bat shit crazy as the conservatives, it’s that simple.
Slightly less crap than the Tories? What differences do you think we'll notice?
Slightly less crap than the Tories? What differences do you think we’ll notice?
Well, If labour can achive a consistent appoach rather than what seems to be the perpetual soap opera of tory infighting, grand standing and backstabbing we've had for the last , what 12 years?
They may have a chance of doing something for the UK, you know, that thing they are paid very well as MP's, to do, thier day job, if you like.
Is that what you believe the problem facing the UK is - a lack of consistent approach and Tory infighting, grand standing and backstabbing?
I would have thought that the problem was best described as "Tory policies".
Still, I understand now why you don't seem particularly bothered about Starmer embracing conservative ideology.
I guess you were probably fine too with your Nick Clegg embracing Tory policies such as austerity in 2010, eh?
I guess you were probably fine too with your Nick Clegg embracing Tory policies such as austerity in 2010, eh?
Then you'd be guessing wrong!
'my Nick Clegg' ? C'mon Ernie, ...you are better than that!
Is that what you believe the problem facing the UK is – a lack of consistent approach and Tory infighting, grand standing and backstabbing?
It's a problem that has to be removed, before the actual real work of running a country in some sort of sensible manner can begin.
Who knows, maybe labour will turn out just to be a different flavour of rats in sacks than the conservatives, but I'm not a clairvoyant.
It’s a problem that has to be removed, before the actual real work of running a country in some sort of sensible manner can begin.
In your opinion.
Lack of consistency is not a problem - the Tories have been consistently right-wing arseholes throughout three different prime ministers.
The problem, IMHO, has been their policies and right-wing agenda.
I don't see Labour providing more consistency to these policies and agenda as a significant step forward.
Edit for your edit:
‘my Nick Clegg‘ ? C’mon Ernie, …you are better than that!
What are you on about - better than what?
You keep banging on how you have always been a Liberal Democrat, am I wrong to assume that Nick Clegg was leader?
And you have never previously said that there was a break in your support for the LibDems. How long did this break last for if you didn't always support the LibDems?
So who are you going to vote for in the next GE, out of interest? 😉
I'll go first..I'd rather vote Lib Dem, but will probably, reluctantly vote labour.
So who are you going to vote for in the next GE, out of interest? 😉
Dunno. My instincts tell me Green which is what I voted in the last local elections (they did very well)
But I want to see the Tories totally annihilated so that they don't form a government again anytime soon, this would require a huge Labour majority. I would be ecstatic if Labour won a 200 seat majority. So the temptation to back Labour is very strong indeed.
However Palestine has changed everything now. I am hugely involved in local Palestine solidarity campaigns which are heavily targeting pro-Starmer politicians, so I fear that unless there is a huge shift I will be unable to back Labour with its support for a far-right racist government which is murdering women and children on a daily basis.
To compound the dilemma for me the LibDem candidate (ex army - bomb disposal Middle East) in my constituency is absolutely excellent on Palestine - he called for an immediate ceasefire even before it was official LibDem policy, and he is committed to justice for the Palestinians - I have heard him speak at my local mosque.
In contrast the Greens, although their position on Palestine nationally is good, have not engaged at all with the local campaigns - Croydon is about 14% Muslim.
Ironically I am repeatedly defending the Labour Party (obviously not the leadership) on local pro-Palestinian WhatsApp groups from now really hostile Muslims who have grown to hate Labour (they obviously hate the Tories even more) And I now also sing the praises of my local LibDem candidate, would you believe.
I can actually see myself ending up canvassing for the LibDems when the general election campaign kicks off - I last did that in 1997.
Unless Sarah Jones MP decides to end her front bench career and backs a call for a ceasefire, which is extremely unlikely but not impossible - you should see her face when she is challenged - she very clearly knows she should. If she did I would canvas for her (last did in 2017)
Fair enough!
The Palestine thing is complex, to put it lightly!
But IMO there's nothing complex about calling for an immediate ceasefire on both sides to allow a more sensible diplomatic conversation to take place.
Starmer falling short of that and calling for a 'humanitarian pause' I feel is a bit of a 'mealy mouthed' way of saying the same thing though?
I'm actually genuinely curious as to why chose to say 'humanitarian pause' rather than 'ceasefire'.
Call me a layman in legaleese, but they both mean the same thing to me?
They may have a chance of doing something for the UK, you know, that thing they are paid very well as MP’s, to do, thier day job, if you like.
Yes, but what is that something? They had one policy which really differentiated them from the Tories, and they're ditching it.
I would have thought that the problem was best described as “Tory policies”
💯
This seems to have been forgotten amongst the melee.
Lots have accepted the current ideology as the correct way of doing things despite all the evidence to the contrary. And that the Tories are simply doing their own ideology 'badly'. (Which they are but it's a distraction.)
So the argument has exploded a la Vorderman without even looking at the framework we are operating in.
The Conservative framework is flawed no matter how good Starmer does it.
Maybe and heres a shocking thought for you, people actually do want a lot of the old Tory policies in this country. What they dont want is the screaming, overt corruption and the Daily Mail approach to politics. The Tories havent had real policies and consistently implement them for a long time. Brexit wasnt a policy, it was a botched attempt to unify the party, stop the boats and Rawanda arent policies, they are dog whistle racism in action with no chance of success. They dont really have a policy on the NHS, I dont count let it collapse as a policy, green policy, all a load of hot air at best, pun intended, U turn at the slightest whiff of backlash and dont actualy do anything. They dont actually have policies for anything so I'm not sure how Starmer can be accused of nicking them.
As has been proven time and time again this country is generally centre right. What the electorate want is some sensible centre right govwrnment. Starmer is aiming to provide that and as a result has a fighting chance of getting into government. Some form of functioning government that is not totally right wing will be a lot better than things are today. When the country is more stable, people are less riled up by the populist politics they might be ready to accept a slow move to the left creating a fairer society for everyone, they certainly arent ready for it now otherwise Corbyn be prime minister.
Did you really type that with a straight face, centrists by the very definition are in the centre,
Ermmm no they arent and even if they were that would not stop them be either ideologically pure or for that matter extreme.
Ideological purity is about how firmly you hold to the position you have and how willing you are to compromise. Being in the "centre" has no relevance to this.
Same for being extreme. "extreme" covers both the position on the political spectrum as a pejorative as well as how someone is willing to achieve those goals. As such you could have extremists for any position.
and have you ever heard of a bell curve?
Yes. It represents normal distribution. Now I know your level of argument is generally covid denier level picking out sciency sounding words and throwing them and hoping they stick but lets look at it in more detail.
Lets start with a simple scenario you apply it practically for.
Slavery.
What are your positions to get the bell curve model?
Lets not start flinging insults and getting personal, even if that does seem to be a left wing trait
**** me. Are you declaring yourself to be left wing since you have been particularly fond of insulting people.
What is it about right wing snowflakes who love hurling insults but then whine like **** when people respond in kind to their bleatings?
Maybe and heres a shocking thought for you, people actually do want a lot of the old Tory policies in this country.
Well firstly, it would be shocking if it were true, opinion poll after opinion poll show huge public support for widescale nationalisation, for example, even among Tory voters.
That is not the reason that Starmer has ditched the nationalisation pledges he made when he was desperate to become party leader, for sure.
Secondly, if your policies are correct, and the Tory policies are wrong, you argue in favour of your policies explaining why Tory policies are wrong. You don't say "sod this, let's just argue for the same policies as the Tories".
Because otherwise there is no point in having a Labour Party and the obvious solution is to join the Conservative Party so that you can help to guarantee that they implement their policies in a consistent and effective way. After all the Tories are mostly in government and we are constantly reminded, by right-wingers, that nothing can be done out of government.
Maybe and heres a shocking thought for you, people actually do want a lot of the old Tory policies in this country.
Or rather they think they do. But if offered genuine alternatives which actually worked out better for them (healthcare, schooling, equality etc,.) they might prefer those.
slow move to the left creating a fairer society for everyone, they certainly arent ready for it now otherwise Corbyn be prime minister.
The political back drop is nowhere near the same now as back then.
Although it does appear to me Centrists always seem to bang their head against something then ask for it to be delivered.
Hence where we are now.
Or rather they think they do. But if offered genuine alternatives which actually worked out better for them (healthcare, schooling, equality etc,.) they might prefer those.
This over and over. Material conditions
If you convince the public - money is scarce and we have to fight over what's left - what are they going to believe?
It's totally bizarre the narrative that doesn't serve the biggest amount of people gets the biggest amount of traction.
Streeting and Reeves have done nothing but talk shite this week but Centrists still remain uncritical. (Although John McTernan delivered some home truths.)
If the Tories had said what they'd said - the Sunak thread would have exploded into tiny Centrist pieces.
(Recap - bankers bonuses no cap, corp tax fixed at the same nice low rate but no promises on income tax cuts for the workers.)
Beth Rigby on Reeves.
She will run the economy with "iron discipline" while repeatedly promising "stability" and "certainty" for business. Labour will be a "pro-business" party and govern in that way.
That Conservative language isn't just rhetoric: for many on the Labour left, Ms Reeves is emulating the Tories in policy.
I mean that is Tory language. Old, useless failed Tory language.
The priority list for Labour is dismal.
What the electorate want is some sensible centre right govwrnment.
Quite a bold statement. Funny that almost every time someone does some research about what policies voters want, they nearly always find they want things like a well funded NHS, free higher education, nationalised utilities, progressive taxation, and high quality public services. Pretty much the only rightwing policy they're keen on is lower immigration.
Your conclusion that we get tory govts because that's what voters want is somewhat naive and simplistic. The reason we get tory govts is because they have gerrymandered the electoral system in their favour (labour need thousands of more votes per MP than tories do) and leveraged support from their friends in the media to influence voters to vote against their own interests. It's got bollocks all to do with what voters actually want.
(labour need thousands of more votes per MP than tories do)
And that's even worse at this election that in the past.
I mean that is Tory language.
Sounds more like Gordon Brown to me, leaning hard on the "prudence" at first and then a steady but continual turning on of the taps after a stable transition out of the ****. And arguably he had inherited a far better situation than the next chancellor will. Language about cooperation tax etc this week sounds a lot like his first budget.
So the 28bn per year green investment policy has now been officially ditched. The last remaining policy which differentiated labour from the tories. Seems the choice before voters is now between a potentially competent tory govt and the existing incompetent tory govt. I've never voted tory in my life and I'm not about to start now.
So the 28bn per year green investment policy has now been officially ditched.
But who actually ever believed that they would stick with it, apart for one obvious exception?
I work on the assumption that nothing Starmer says should be believed. The best you can expect is that it is perhaps a possibility.
And the question is why did they drop it, who asked/back handed them?
Can't see it swaying the vote but was the right thing to do rather than canning it which is obviously the wrong thing to do.
I work on the assumption that nothing Starmer says should be believed. The best you can expect is that it is perhaps a possibility.
He will have to hope that not many people suss him out (those who even know who he is) and the longer away the election the more crap he will come out with.
Does beg the question - why do they even bother bringing it up?
To me it's a terrible plan to offer it up and then remove it. No one wins. Totally shit way of doing things. What's the point?
But not surprised - this is a cowardly pathetic Labour party.
(Didn't we say ages ago this was going anyway. It doesn't seem news to me.)
Sounds more like Gordon Brown to me, leaning hard on the “prudence” at first
And the context of prudence versus accelerating crisis is what?
He will have to hope that not many people suss him out
The election campaign is going to be more important than everyone assumes I think. Feels to me like Starmer is eminently capable of f***** it up like Brown and May did with some random gaffe. With no real policies other than 'I'm better than them' he's going to have to play the campaign perfectly or his support could drain away quite quickly. Maybe a hung parliament is more likely than everyone thinks?
Absolutely Daz.
There is too much blind faith in Starmer when the evidence is pretty terrible.
Almost feels delusional to me; blind to the things he's done.
Not saying he won't win but literally the only possible outcome is the Tories will *probably* be out.
Everything else is looking like a wasted opportunity, and feeding into exactly what we said a couple of years ago when all this was on the cards.
The defence of Starmer has been eye opening to me.
I don't even believe he knows what he's doing other than going through motions.
So the 28bn per year green investment policy has now been officially ditched.
What a dumb arse of a move.
Anyone seen Miliband...?
Really stupid and electorally counterproductive as it'll split the progressive vote, and all because of an imagined green backlash stoked by Tufton St in the aftermath of the Uxbridge by-election (which as discussed before was a choice between an anti-ULEZ Tory and an anti-ULEZ Lab).
To me it’s a terrible plan to offer it up and then remove it. No one wins. Totally shit way of doing things. What’s the point?
Is it? The £28bn green investment was explosively announced to much fanfare and received massive publicity and support from voters. You can expect a typical response to the announcement to be "oh I really like that - I am definitely voting Labour at the next general election".
The reversal was a whole different exercise. First came the rumours and then the heavy hints, until finally it was announced quietly today with the minimal fuss.
The announcement grabbed the headlines, the reversal not so much. And to make sure that blame for the reversal is laid squarely onto the shoulders of those useless Tories, not Starmer, Labour also announced today:
“It will depend on the strength of the economy – we will only invest when it’s affordable"
So there you have it, the reason for this U-turn is all down to the state of the economy, and we all know who is responsible for that, don't we? It is certainly not Starmer!
Blame the Tories for having to abandon your great idea. And who says there are no winners in all of this?
Morgan McSweeney is undoubtedly a clever man. Although I do wonder what ideas he has for when "blaming the Tories for everything" goes beyond its acceptable shelf life?
“It will depend on the strength of the economy – we will only invest when it’s affordable”
So there you have it, the reason for this U-turn is all down to the state of the economy, and we all know who is responsible for that, don’t we? It is certainly not Starmer!
Yeah I can't go there though because it is affordable and that would be on Starmer.
I like how the climate depends on the economy. It's Julia Hartley Brewer territory.
"There's a Volcano just opened up and thousands are dying ... But how are going to fund the disaster relief? We need a good economy before we can help them."
The economy has been in bad shape for ages. To pretend now they know something they don't when they announced it just look ridiculous.
Public spending on this project is a non-issue. 28Bn is not much at all. In fact it needs to be a factor ten times more than that to touch the sides. But you have to start somewhere. Was willing to go with that.
LSE have a guess at 1% of GDP per year which is 30bn - I think. Probably where Labour got the number from.
No idea.
This has been an awful week for the Labour party.
What a shocking mess - made-up 'fiscal rules' v the environment, green investment, and possible growth that follows.
He is going to struggle when he actually gets tested during the election campaign as he never seems confident and a few slips over his many u turns and the wheels will come off.
Let's hope people really do want the tories out at any cost.
I hope that the game will play out as Starmer being the more pallatable choice for the tory voters / red wall turners, and under him we'll get some stability. In that time the party will do what it needs to do to stand Andy Burnham as their next leader, to be PM in their second term, when we will see some real changes, for at least the next 10 years after that.
In that time the party will do what it needs to do to stand Andy Burnham as their next leader, to be PM in their second term
I was hoping for Andy Burnham sometime in the first term - personally I can't see Starmer lasting a full term, he simply is not prime ministerial material imo.
And add to that the fact that he will undoubtedly have to deal with some very serious crises, not necessarily just domestic.
Obviously the problem with Andy Burnham replacing Starmer is that Burnham doesn't have a Westminster seat. The only legal way round that would be for Labour to give him a seat in the House of Lords, which would be weird to say the least.
It would have to be some crises for that to happen.
. In that time the party will do what it needs to do to stand Andy Burnham as their next leader, to be PM in their second term
Let's hope he does a better job than the last time he ran for leadership.
I don't think Burnham would be a good leader, although I do think he has matured as a politician since his leadership bid and the stuff he has done as mayor of Manchester has grounded him away from the Westminster bubble. Personally I think what I have seen from him recently he would make a really good home secretary.
A better leader would be great, a good leader would be fantastic.
I don't ever want to see Andy Burnham leading anything. His dog-whistle racism during covid shows him for what he really is; a populist who would pander to whoever he felt it necessary, to gain power. Nasty little man.
Guardian comments in melt down.
This one hasn't gone down well with his usual cavalry.
Some jokers saying he has to get approval from the Tories before he goes through with something.
I fear Labour won't learn a whole lot from this situation. But they could have passed the peak now with support.
The absolute daft thing is they could still have won an election with this one.
the stuff he has done as mayor of Manchester
Fail to deliver and blame Westminster (apart from buses)?
His dog-whistle racism.....
Still, at least he has called for a far-right racist government to stop murdering Arabs, which is more than the current leader of the Labour Party has done. So in that respect at least he represents an improvement.
Chief Political prick of the Guardian doing a fine job of justifying the desperate need to get the markets and big business on side because because ... bond vigilantes.
You know what - these institutions will be just fine and carry on creaming money into bigger pots whilst everything else can just suck up the mess.
What a Tory arse Rawnsley is.
https://www.itv.com/news/2024-02-05/british-muslim-support-for-labour-halves-according-to-new-poll
Westminster Voting Intentions (Survation/LMN Poll):
Labour: 43% (-43)
Conservative: 6% (-4)
Liberal Democrat: 6% (+5)
SNP: 3% (+1)
Green: 10% (+9)
Other: 4% (+4)
Undecided: 23% (N/A)
I am surprised that there is not greater support for the LibDems who have strongly supported the call for a ceasefire, and their foreign affairs spokesperson is half Palestinian with close family in Gaza and has obviously been very vocal.
It is excellent news for the Green Party though.
Had to read that twice to get the measure.
I suppose eventually these messed up Labour decisions have to backfire somewhere.
while Im not surprised that theres been an negative response among muslims to Labour backing Israel
the poll above has been manipulated by comparing undecided to decided voters, which is not how polls are normally done
the correct figures look like this
LAB: 60% (-26)
GRN: 14% (+13)
LDM: 9% (+8)
CON: 8% (-2)
SNP: 4% (+2)
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1754453132090712355
https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1754449087045263571
I am not sure that the "corrected" figures are any less damning, they show a huge, and I suspect more realistic, level of support for the Greens, and a much healthier, and again probably more realistic, level of support for the LibDems.
60% is obviously better than 43% for Labour but it is still a massive drop from 86% in 2019.
And the 24% undecided Muslim former Labour voters does not look good at all for Labour - I suspect that they are mostly undecided because they can't make their minds up whether to vote Green, LibDem, or Independent.
Which is also exactly where I am personally.
It looks like Starmer's slow motion U-turn on his green pledge might now be turning into a 360° turn:
Either Rachel Reeves and Keir Starmer aren't singing from the same hymn sheets and a spilt has developed between them or Starmer is just being his usual flip-flopping self.
Bearing in that Starmer is likely to be Prime Minister in 3 months time neither scenarios inspire confidence.
The green pledge is not only popular but it also one of the few clear policies which Labour has. And yet Starmer has nevertheless managed to take the pledge out of the green pledge before apparently now recommitting and muddling up the whole issue.
Among the many qualities required to be an effective prime minister is an ability to be decisive. Starmer clearly lacks this as he often reacts to events several days after they have occurred.
Less of a problem when you are leader of the opposition and everyone is expecting the government to act decisively but obviously a huge problem when you are prime minister.
Hopefully for him Morgan McSweeney will learn to pull Starmer's strings a little quicker when he becomes prime minister and Thunderbirds are go.
Good news. I get trying to switch policy from targets on spending to targets on results, but it was sending out all the wrong signals as regards how serious their government would be as regards the state’s role in the rapid switch to renewables.
Anyway, where is Miliband…?
They just need to not be cowardly and fight back every time the Tories attack them for it.
We need this stuff. If it's doable - it's affordable. The only argument the Tories will have will be the national debt - **** em, you want growth the national 'debt' will expand and will never be a problem. It will simply roll over and be adjusted with Q//E or reserve swaps.
Reeves needs to drop her stupid adherence to Conservative economics - baseless and regressive.
All the batshit stuff the Tories do but at least they don't care and just do it!
Lmfao looks he his going to confirm the 28bn green plan is gone - tomorrow, according the latest guardian article.
Is that 720 degrees spin?
What's the news for next week - Wes Streeting is going to do the Dental survey himself to *save* money?
Total weasels
Awful timing for that announcement, just as they had Rishi on the ropes for his comments in PMQs about U turns, and they take the heat off him with another U turn. You know what the press are going to focus on tomorrow.
Starmer needs to fight fire with fire and have a list of Tory U turns, failed policies and expensive mistakes ready to throw back at him.
To be fair to Starmer, I think his response to Sunaks transphobic comments was on point.. just shocked and incredulous.
Thats what I'd like to see more of in the commons, rather than the baying mob that we often get, PMQ's often sounds more like when a rival bunch of football hooligans accidentally meet each other in the wrong pub.
It's totally unprofessional and a national embarrassment to think that these are MP's in high office.
Lmfao looks he his going to confirm the 28bn green plan is gone – tomorrow, according the latest guardian article.
It seems like it. It does rather look like Labour needs to put it's best tory clothes on to get elected. Yay! Or how very depressing.
Earlier this week to Times radio Kier Starmer said "We're going to need investment that's where the 28 Billion comes in, that investment that's desperately needed for that mission, and i've been unwavering in that mission"
So less than 36 hours ago he was unwavering?, today it's dumped?.
The guy is a ****ing joke, England you're welcome to the prick.
So less than 36 hours ago he was unwavering?, today it’s dumped?.
The sad thing is the tories will then attack him for u turning anyway. So its a double loss for him and a double win for the tories.
Lmfao looks he his going to confirm the 28bn green plan is gone – tomorrow, according the latest guardian article.
After what he said yesterday I think this is evidence that Starmer is not really in control of Labour's economic policies - he is very unlikely to have changed his mind on such an important Labour policy so quickly.
These decisions are probably being made Rachel Reeves and Starmer presumably hadn't cleared it with her when he recommitted Labour to the £28bn green pledge yesterday.
Either that or yesterday Starmer was deliberately trying to assert his authority over Reeves by publicly claiming that the £28bn green pledge had not been ditched, and yet failed because Reeves perhaps managed to get Morgan McSweeney and possibly David Evans to back her and put pressure on Starmer.
I have long thought that Starmer treats his role as leader of the Labour Party as a lawyer under the instruction of their client. In this case the client being the "Labour Together" faction.
It would certainly explain why he appears to have no genuine commitment to anything and why he will shamelessly preform spectacular U-turns with such apparent ease.
Labour policies have become nothing more than a guessing game.
own goal on the £28bn pledge, no matter how much Tories attacked them on it they could stop say it's investing in the country
was always dangerous tying themselves to a figure
the more sensible stance theyve gone to now was the one they should have had
it does highlight that labour think theyre most vulnerable on economic credibility
was always dangerous tying themselves to a figure
Since becoming leader Starmer's strategy appears to have been based on having very few policies and not tying himself to anything.
There was a lot of disquiet about this strategy and the most common criticism from voters was that they didn't know where Labour stood in terms of policies.
I had assumed the clear and unequivocal £28bn green pledge was an attempt to address that issue, and it was certainly very popular with voters. And yet Starmer still managed to somehow screw that up. Or at least it was screwed up for him.
The sad thing is the tories will then attack him for u turning anyway. So its a double loss for him and a double win for the tories.
Exactly - exactly.
This has been my point since the start. The Tories will always attack labour.
Labour just need get on with the job of fixing all the Tory pain. Let them attack - it won't matter because if Labour do some good things, people will see a huge uptick.
Then they will just have to defend the spending...
You know 28bn is nothing. It is literally nothing. It will make not a jot of difference to your taxes or borrowing. And even if 28bn goes on the national debt they could just talk up Q/E.
330bn-ish was spent during COVID. And aside from inflation due to supply shocks, it's reckoned spending only accounted for 3% of the total inflation. No taxes were involved.
That current big hole in the state is begging to be fixed.
You want better things? (god help us we need it) it's time to jack up the spending.
There is literally no other route to growth or investment.
But here we have Starmer the coward that he is can't make an argument for the thing that is asking for money - because of a balance sheet.
That's all it comes down to. A balance sheet - no real debt at all.
Tory macro-economic decisions have destroyed the fabric of our society - all the evidence you need is out there and Starmer can't find an argument to defend this position? Worse than this Tory narrative is part of the Labour argument too now. A fictional, regurgitated concept that the government can't create money to spend (when it currently does this - day in day out.) is controlling the debate.
Starmer even said so himself 4 years ago - not that it would matter...
This is going to be a tough election in which to vote.
I can’t vote Tory. A thoroughly reprehensible bunch who are almost pantomime villainous. 13 lost years for the country.
I can’t vote Labour. Despite 13 years of planning time, they still don’t know what to do and I am afraid that some of their policies are so radical and untested simply as a reaction to the last 13 years that we might repeat Truss’s impact on the country.
A vote for anybody else feels like a wasted vote since it really feels like a 1 horse race.
For the first time in my life I am faced with potentially not voting, despite a very firm belief that everybody should. It is such a democratic privilege.
It is a sad state of affairs that a spoiled ballot might be my only way of expressing that they are all unelectable.
I can’t vote Labour. Despite 13 years of planning time, they still don’t know what to do and I am afraid that some of their policies are so radical and untested simply as a reaction to the last 13 years that we might repeat Truss’s impact on the country.
I think a lot of us have missed those radical policies, can you tell us what they are as I would genuinely like to know and also wonder how I have missed them?
BBC News page. No irony intended?
Cowards. Relying almost purely (£6 billion of public money a year is bugger all) on private sector investment may well get us to carbon fuel free energy generation by 2030… but it’ll probably end up costing us all more… without the government leading with “its own money” we are at risk of private companies holding us to ransom (again) as they drag their heals and blackmail us for higher profits through billing and long term tax breaks in return for doing what we require of them.
And… where is Miliband?
As Chancellor, I will not shirk our responsibility to future generations. No dither, no delay. Labour will meet the challenge head on and seize the opportunities of the green transition. Let me tell you today what I will do as your Chancellor. I will invest in good jobs in the green industries of the future; giga-factories to build batteries for electric vehicles; a thriving hydrogen industry; offshore wind with turbines made in Britain; planting trees and building flood defences; keeping homes warm and getting energy bills down; good new jobs in communities throughout Britain.
In other words: protecting and strengthening our everyday economy. And to make this a reality, to unlock that potential, and protect our planet for future generations. I can announce today that I am committing the next Labour government to an additional £28bn of capital investment in our country’s green transition for each and every year of this decade. I will be a responsible Chancellor. I will be Britain’s first green Chancellor.
- Rachel Reeves 2021
Labour are definitely on a role.
Should have heard John Mcternan earlier. Ooof.
Politics has become about what you can't have or fix these days. I predict a low turn out in a G.E.
https://twitter.com/unherd/status/1755648940270108953?t=4zmjxWBUkOxmIINoA1ARgQ&s=19
Here here.
This plan was clearly liked!
Despite its lead in the polls, Labour is allowing the Conservatives to impose their economic frame on the political debate.
Because it too hard for Starmer to argue that the Tories haven't managed the economy well.
Plus the Daily Mail wouldn't like it.
some of their policies are so radical and untested
You what now?
Because it too hard for Starmer to argue that the Tories haven’t managed the economy well.
Mate, politicians don't get anywhere by arguing things rationally. They get votes by manipulating sentiment.