Forum menu
You made a big play on a headline that was not supported by the article.
No mate, only in your head. It is you and Argee who have made a huge issue of the headline - Argee has even admitted to complaining to Sky News about the headline! ffs
I simply copied and pasted it because it seemed an appropriate headline for the Sky News article which I linked.
Let's look at it another way around: when Reeves was was asked if she would bail-out bankrupt councils - she could have said 'of course we will fix them - there is no other choice as they've been destroyed by the Tories and people deserve better. As a government that holds the purse strings to the countries finances we will find the money.'
Centrism really is stupid politics built on lies; and doing heavy lifting for Conservation logic - with absolutely no real solutions to the current situation.
All in the name of Labour.
None of that makes any sense whatsoever, you want Reeves to make a commitment without knowing the depths of the issue, both in government funding and in the council crisis?!
As for your statement on centrism, you could make the exact same for leftism and far right, moderate right, centre left, etc, etc, it's just words put together to critique a political view without any factual information involved.
None of that makes any sense whatsoever, you want Reeves to make a commitment without knowing the depths of the issue, both in government funding and in the council crisis?!
Seeing that Reeves could be chancellor in a few months don't you think she should know the depths of the issue and have a good plan to deal with it very quickly.
Even if she doesn't have enough detail she can still have said that yes Labour will be helping the councils more and believe it or not the people server by the councils are the very same people the government are supposed to be there for. She could even go further and say she would reform funding all together and say for example that social care it going to be funded separately as that is a national issue.
She has said that in her replies that she will not be bailing our councils so while she didn't speicifally say those exact words that is an accurate summary of what she was saying.
Apologies for the link to the Sun. I heard this on the radio this morning and couldn't quite believe it so I had to search - so far the Sun is the only one carrying the story.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/26675437/huge-change-to-concert-ticket-prices-under-labour/
Basically SKS has decided that the current scourge of society is ticket touts so there's policy to cap the resale value of gig tickets. 🙄
It does of course mention "hard-working Brits".
More 🙄🙄
That's a bit of good news for the gig industry as far as I'm concerned, even if it is a bit of posturing, for Starmers next trick I'd like to see him fund the arts/music scene and put a stop to the destruction of the club/nightlife society in towns and cities, not holding my breath for that one though.
Basically SKS has decided that the current scourge of society is ticket touts so there’s policy to cap the resale value of gig tickets. 🙄
I know, a Labour politician wanting to prevent rampant capitalism making the arts unaffordable for ordinary working folk! ****ing outrageous!
It's the thin end of the wedge (hopefully). You mark my words. First they came for the ticket touts....
I know, a Labour politician wanting to prevent rampant capitalism making the arts unaffordable for ordinary working folk! **** outrageous!
Just waiting for binners to appear with his age old rant about Labour leaders focusing on unimportant and parochial subjects. Is this more or less important than sorting out bus services?
Have to say though as a massive Swifty if Starmer can ensure I don't have to pay nearly a grand for tickets to her next tour I'm all for it.
Starmer has spent the last couple of years trying to minimise people's expectations of what a Labour government can realistically achieve in just one parliament, so it is fantastic to see that he has apparently got his priorities right.
Also Starmer has repeatedly been criticised for making so little firm commitments on anything, well not since winning the leadership election anyway, so it great to hear of this new "pledge".
And I can't imagine that he will perform a U-turn on such an important pledge, unlike the £28bn green pledge, so that should be reassuring.
Come on, at least he's not focusing on trivialities like broadband access.
Who was the speech to? Might the policy be of interest to them?
It was a speech specifically about arts and culture, which let's not forget it's a multi billion pound industry that has been hammered by Brexit. So the eye rolling of him talking about this is pretty ill- conceived
I’d like to see him fund the arts/music scene and put a stop to the destruction of the club/nightlife society in towns and cities
Aye but Labour councillors will still shut them down if they don't get a steady supply of brown envelopes.
It was a speech specifically about arts and culture
Well no one thought that he was talking at a conference dealing with the crisis in the NHS, did they??
Of course he was talking at an arts conference, and of course he tailored his speech to appeal to his audience.
Telling his audience what they want to hear is something that Starmer is particularly good at. It has got to where he is today.
He will talk to an audience made up of ordinary Labour Party members in which he will come across all lefty and radical, and then the next day attend a venue with business leaders in which he is more committed to "conservative" values and fiscal prudence than the Tory Party.
I don't know why anyone takes him seriously as a progressive individual any longer.
It was a speech specifically about arts and culture, which let’s not forget it’s a multi billion pound industry that has been hammered by Brexit. So the eye rolling of him talking about this is pretty ill- conceived
Public funding for the arts has been slashed as local authorities can no longer cope with 60% or more of their budgets going on social care.
But sure, make it all about ticket touts.
I've not clicked on the Sun link... is it them making it "all about" ticket touts?
Here's the text of the speech : https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-at-the-labour-creatives-conference/
Or there's a video here : https://labourlist.org/2024/03/keir-starmer-speech-today-arts-creative-industries-celebrities/ [ 23 mins in ]
Public funding for the arts has been slashed as local authorities can no longer cope with 60% or more of their budgets going on social care.
Exactly, and remind me what radical approach Starmer or Reeves have to 'reform' the way that social care works
Here’s the text of the speech
Haven't we reached the stage where everything that Starmer says has to be taken with a pinch of salt?
How many more "pledges" does Starmer have to break before we stop taking him seriously?
My support of Starmer depends on what he says and does argee, is it any different for you?
When he made those 10 leadership pledges although I was suspicious (he wasn't my preferred choice to be Labour leader) I strongly supported him. When he recanted on them one by one I strongly criticised him.
It was be strange if I supported Starmer when he takes one position and then supported him when he takes the opposite position, although I guess that you seem to manage to do that.
But I am of course perfectly prepared to support Starmer when he says and does what I consider to be appropriate.
In fact yesterday on the Diane Abbott thread I posted a quote from Keir Starmer which I described as "wise words".
However my point remains that it is difficult to take commitments and pledges made by Starmer seriously when he has recanted on so many, even what were supposed to be absolutely'cast iron' pledges, such as the £28 billion green pledge. Don't tell me that you haven't noticed argee?
Exactly, and remind me what radical approach Starmer or Reeves have to ‘reform’ the way that social care works
Even if they did, they'd probably u-turn on it.
You can't reform your way to building houses and simple rely on the private sector to do it - by way of example. This is why we have the state to fix such problems as lack of supply; because the private sector has excluded a portion of society.
Repeat for anything else 'dumb' and 'dumber' say they're going to reform.
Starmer simply doesn't want to do anything progressive. A hollow champion of the ailing private sector.
I mean - at least Corbyn had a plan and agenda to fix stuff. But Centrists did a good job on him didn't they to deliver this prat! And they've lapped up his lies as 'pragmatism' and 'strategy.'
The luckiest Labour leader in history is a dismal conservative (one who could enact real change. )
Amazing.
Don't ever ask a Centrist to make coffee for you, you'd end up with stewed microwaved tea.
FWIW- I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate the time in the run up to a General Election might not be as good for Labour as everyone thinks. I'm not saying it will tip the scales but I feel Starmer is starting to appear like a sitting duck to critics.
When he made those 10 leadership pledges although I was suspicious (he wasn’t my preferred choice to be Labour leader) I strongly supported him. When he recanted on them one by one I strongly criticised him.
Same for me. I thought he was a pretty good choice and could have a chance of election success (sensible, no baggage and half decent objectives)
Once the half decent objectives have gone and appears he can't really be trusted on any pledges he makes all he has left is no baggage - Vote for me, I have nothing dodgy to hide.
Same for me
Me too. We sat at a local CLP meeting and thought ‘he’s the sensible bloke that can get us all the good stuff’ (I’m paraphrasing) and gave him our endorsement. I’m no longer a member of the Labour Party.
And yet, my mate, who’s now chair of that same CLP has his head firmly buried in the sand and thinks Starmer’s tantamount to the second coming!
I’m going to go out on a limb and speculate the time in the run up to a General Election might not be as good for Labour as everyone thinks.
Who thinks that? It’s going to be dirty and nasty.
Of course it is going to be dirty and nasty - a bunch of tories with a lot to lose and a media that will largely support them is never going to be an easy ride.
Not helped by people not having a clue what Starmer actually stands for (this week)
Who thinks that?
Well I think that. In the last year the gap between the Tories and Labour has widen slightly, there is no evidence waiting another 6 months will help the Tories.
Especially as Rishi Sunak appears to be displaying his ineptitude as Tory leader on a weekly basis - who would have guessed that it would take him 24 hours to figure out that someone talking about hating all black women was racist?
The gap widening of the last 12 months isn't apparently because of increased support for Labour, I'll grant you that, but because of increased support for Reform UK.
But Rishi Sunak clearly hasn't learnt the lesson behind that development - the more he tries to capture their ground the more he feeds into their narrative. And it's Reform UK who benefits, not the Tories. So another 6 months of following the same blunder will in all likelihood damage the Tories even more.
There appears to be evidence that public approval for Starmer is falling but no evidence that it is significantly harming Labour.
https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/
And I don't think it will get much more dirty and nasty. The right-wing press never waited for the election campaigns to kick off before launching into dirty and nasty attacks on the previous Labour leader, they simply increased the volume during the campaign periods.
The right-wing press have treated Keir Starmer with kid gloves for two reasons. First and foremost they don't see him as a threat and secondly the realisation that at some point the Tory party, after 14 years, needs to temporarily give up power.
What better time than when the Labour Party is lead by a man who boasts of his "conservative" credentials and has purged the Left from its ranks?
Well I think that. In the last year the gap between the Tories and Labour has widen slightly, there is no evidence waiting another 6 months will help the Tories.
So you don't think lower interest rates, energy and probably inflation will be seized upon?
I do.
Of course more Brexit aged pensioners will have died off too by then.
But I can definitely see the reason for hanging on.
In the last year inflation has more than halved and old people have died, and yet the gap between the Tories and Labour has widened slightly.
Where is the evidence that hanging on for another 6 months and waiting for a cold dark November evening will help Rishi Sunak?
Because inflation halving on its own is not enough good news set against the bad news.
Whereas lower interest rates which affects loads of things will be sizeable in spin terms plus 'we're out of recession.'
I'm not saying it will necessarily close the gap but the Tories will have more good news to shout about come autumn than they have at this moment.
Put it like this - they believe something might turn up otherwise they wouldn't have delayed it so much.
Because inflation halving on its own is not enough good news set against the bad news.
Whereas lower interest rates which affects loads of things will be sizeable in spin terms plus 'we're out of recession.'
I'm not saying it will necessarily close the gap but the Tories will have more good news to shout about come autumn than they have at this moment.
Put it like this - they believe something might turn up otherwise they wouldn't have delayed it so much.
Inflation halfing is barely even spinnable as good news, because it's so easy to say "it's still really high, everything is getting more expensive and making everyone poorer- all you're really doing is admitting it was even worse.". Even the forecast falls still leaves it above the 20 year average.
Politicians are used to being able to effortlessly bamboozle people on public finance and throw out false equivalences, gross oversimplifications, and small numbers that seem big. But here it runs into even simpler stuff, "I can't afford things I could afford 5 years ago". People fundamentally get that either things have to get cheaper or they have to get richer, just in order to get back to where they were, it's pennies in pocket stuff that makes more sense the less money you have. I've literally heard people say "inflation is better so prices will come down" so you can get halfway towards fooling people, but that's very temporary.
But that sort of thing gets hard to understand, for people who've never worried about the price of stuff, when you can effortlessly mislead people over billions of quid it must come as a shock that you can't fool them over the price of a tin of beans.
This is the kind of tone I'd like to see being reported with Starmers name attached to it, not the bloody Lib Dems.
BBC News - Liberal Democrat conference: Sir Ed Davey calls for 'once-in-a-generation' election
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68586347
Just your weekly reminder that vile twerps such as professional numbskull Liz Kendall (who appear to know nothing, absolutely nothing about how the government finances itself) - is basically here reading from a Tory framed script to piss everyone off about people on benefits and pass the blame of UK economic woes to them too.
Just another day in low-ball Labour world.
https://twitter.com/jrc1921/status/1764608928996852049?t=gpvF3bl2x3OKD06tsQXeLA&s=19
She says over next 5 years there will be 600,000 more people on sickness/disability benefits costing an additional £33bn a year, same as the defence budget. OBR says this is holding back growth and living standards, putting greater pressure on pubic finances. And Tories don't have an answer to this.
Which bit of that is incorrect?
Which bit of that is incorrect?
Possibly the claim that the Tories haven't been "tough on benefits"? What do you think John? Have you seen the film 'I, Daniel Blake'?
These sort of comments by Shadow Cabinet members are targeted at Tory voters, not Labour voters. And as there doesn't appear to be one single Tory voter on STW I wouldn't expect anyone here to be impressed with Liz Kendall's denunciation of the Tories for being soft on scroungers.
Which bit of that is incorrect?
Do you really need a dig out here to see the optics around being tough on benefits is Tory framing? Whether attacking the Tories or not. It simply sows the seed that benefits claimants are partly responsible for the downward trajectory of the UK.
And if you want a simple fact - it does not hold back public finances. That's a lie.
Again, there are millions targets Labour could apply this logic too (the City as a drain on the rest of the country.) but you know let's keep it in everyone's mind about people on benefits.
Getting used the idea that STW progressives now use Conservative falsehoods (that the Tories aren't tough on benefits) to support the Labour party being tougher.
(The OBR themselves as an Osborne austerity creation are there to keep a lid on public spending. )
There's nothing about this silly woman that should resonate with anyone other than a Conservative.
The Tories claim to be "tough on benefits" and then push more people into relying on benefits.
Just like the Tories claim to be "the party of low taxes" and then push people into higher tax bands.
Stretching the benefit of the doubt to breaking point, it depends if you think "being tough on benefits" means penalising claimants, or dealing with the root causes of people needing to claim them, like lack of education, opportunity, decent wages, a functioning NHS etc
Imagine being proactive with that £33bn
The Tories claim to be “tough on benefits” and then push more people into relying on benefits.
The narrative is to make other people push blame on to them. It's a win win.
Yet again Labour fail to offer a progressive way out and instead add fuel to the debate that the ****less are responsible for poor economic growth.
Kendall is an idiot.
This rise in the benefit bill is related to the poor state of the NHS (and health provisions provided by councils) under the Tories... accessing timely healthcare is becoming harder and harder. There are costs of that for us all.
You seem to see a "blame the claimants" narrative in Kendal's words. Is it really there? I don't see it in that clip... perhaps you have seen it elsewhere. Are we missing some context?
--------------------------------------------------
EDIT: here's the full text of the speech > https://labourlist.org/2024/03/labour-party-work-budget-2024-workers-unemployed-young-people-plan-benefit-work/
Here's a little bit of it... which I'm unsurprised makes the same point that I did:
Labour’s back to work plan is built on investment and rooted in reform. It starts by tackling the root causes of worklessness, so no one is excluded from the opportunity and security than comes from having a good job.
A healthy nation is critical to a healthy economy. They are two sides of the same coin. So we will drive down waits for NHS treatment, creating two million more operations, scans and appointments and recruiting 8,500 more mental health workers, paid for by closing unfair tax loopholes.
We’ll ensure back to work support is tailored to individual and local needs. Overhauling Job centres to end the tick box culture and devolving employment support to local areas. Because the man – or even woman – in Whitehall can never know what’s best for Leicester, Liverpool and Leeds.
We’ll create more good jobs in every part of the country, in clean energy and through our modern industrial strategy.
And we’ll improve the quality of work and make work pay with a genuine living wage, banning exploitative zero hours contracts, and strengthening rights to flexible working that are vital to family life.
Another little (but very important) bit...
When half of all mental health problems start before 14 years old, we have got to intervene earlier. So Labour will provide specialist mental health support in every school and walk in access in every community, tackling one of the key drivers of worklessness before it takes hold.
Getting access to mental health help for young people has become a _______ ____show over the last decade.
I hate to point out the bleedin' obvious.
This is not a fact - about the 600,000 - this is a forecast from the OBR which is making a ton of 5 year assumptions.
The OBR if you don't know doesn't have a great track record for accuracy. And is worth remembering is part of the Treasury and thus likes to frame things to further the conservative approach to the economy. (That is to make a mess of it for most of us )
Maybe I wasn't stretching the benefit of the doubt all that far. Looks like rone may have gone off a little early this time.
That's fine Rone... but the Tories currently run the Treasury... if you can't quote them when critiquing the course they have us on... well... 🤷🏻
This is what the government are telling us is coming... and yet they are not addressing the root issues... timely access to healthcare, education, training, support for the disabled in the workplace, help joining the workforce, less exploitive employment practices... and on and on...
Which bit of that is incorrect?
Possibly the claim that the Tories haven’t been “tough on benefits”? What do you think John?
She says "For all the Tory claims of being tough on benefits..." and then the other stuff in the speech above.
Her point is that being tough on benefits hasn't worked and that a different approach is needed. This may or may not be correct, as may the OBR forecasts (though they are unlikely to be wrong on demographic trends). You seem to be interpreting this as her saying we need to get tougher on benefits and Rone certainly is. Are you hearing what you expect her to say maybe, instead of what she actually said?
Are you hearing what you expect her to say maybe, instead of what she actually said?
No I am not hearing what I expect to hear from a senior Labour politician at all.
I based my comment not on rone's link but a Guardian article:
"Kendall did not specify what form the tougher measures on universal credit would take.
The tough language on welfare – reminiscent of 90s-era New Labour – prompted concern about the implications of sanctions for those struggling with mental health issues."
The Guardian heard the Shadow Cabinet member talking "tough" which when considering she was being critical of the Tories suggests that she considers they have been soft on scroungers. Or at least that is what she wants people to believe.
I am open to the suggestion that the Guardian have misrepresented what Kendall said though and that what she was actually saying is that being tough on claimants doesn't work, so she won't be doing that.
Although I don't know why the Guardian would do that.
I based my comment not on rone’s link but a Guardian article:
Okay, but you said in response to my comment on Rone's linked video
Possibly the claim that the Tories haven’t been “tough on benefits”?
Which she didn't make in that video. Now it's about a different line somewhere else.
I mean I could check on that too, but I've had enough slipperiness for today I'm afraid
Now it’s about a different line somewhere else.
No, it's a reporting of the same speech. Suggest it's easier to read the actual speech than interpret someone else's take on what a journalist said about a speech. In fact, I should probably just drop down to posting links to these Labour front benchers' speeches without comment when the usual suspects work so hard to get upset about single phrases pulled out of context (or even new phrases made out of the words used). It just becomes who can bore the most otherwise, with little regard for the truth.
There absolutely are phrases in use by the Labour team to try and move people who think they are "the party of scroungers"... by sounding tough about reducing the number of people out of work while offering actually useful policy to try and reduce the problems people face that end up with them being excluded from the world of work. They'll use these while pointing out the failings of a party that misunderstands what the state is for, and what people need it to do... ie... the current generation of Conservative MPs.
usual suspects work so hard to get upset
You don't do irony do you?
I see Reeves has come out with some BS about it being like 1979 so now trying to somehow link to Thatcher era and get any Thatcher lovers who are still alive excited.
I see Reeves has come out with some BS about it being like 1979 so now trying to somehow link to Thatcher era and get any Thatcher lovers who are still alive excited.
Has she said that, and for those reasons, or are we over reaching again?
Has she said that, and for those reasons, or are we over reaching again?
Of course we are, Labour are worse than tje conserbatives don't ya know.
As for the benefits question, its complex but the bottom line is we have far too many economically inactivite people within our economy and it will need to be reduced. Why they are economically inactive is up for debate but in reality it will be a combination of increased health issues (Covid possibly and a lot of lifestyle), lower tolerance to difficult circumstances, people give up more easily and the prevelance of benefits although it does seem very random, some people seem to do pretty well livong off the state others seem to be in dire poverty.
Generaly life has got a lot better since for example the 60s so why are more people struggling to cope? Its a shift in societal expectations which is good in some respects as it means we should be more compassionate but on the other hand increasing service provision increases demand. Where do we draw the line between people in need and those that are a bit shit at life?
Thats the dilema Labour are facing and with everyone feeling the cost of living squeeze the electorate arent feeling too generous towards those they perceive not to be contributing.
What does it take to realise that Reeves and Labour are shifting right?
At which point do people supporting Labour currently realise they're having the rug pulled from under them them daily? And refusing to criticise this shift into fiscal Conservatism?
It's bizarre.
When was the last time Labour added anything solid to the progressive agenda?
And yet here we all still are fingers crossed.
Country needs money. To ignore that is to play Conservatism at its own game.
(Please don't waste our time with more reform arguments without big cash behind it.)
Generaly life has got a lot better since for example the 60s so why are more people struggling to cope? Its a shift in societal expectations which is good in some respects as it means we should be more compassionate but on the other hand increasing service provision increases demand. Where do we draw the line between people in need and those that are a bit shit at life?
You know when someone has swallowed the Tory cool aid they start talking like this.
Here's a plan - Labour have no reason to not step-up and fix the things the Tories have cultivated instead of following their economic pathway and getting shambolic results.
People that are a bit 'shit' at life often sit at the top of the wealth distribution model and still do okay. Maybe we could make an argument that they've had it too good for too long and need a bit of tax to clip their wealth, power and resources instead of using the OBRs austerity driven models to go after the forecasted 600,000 people that might get spat out because of inequality?
usual suspects work so hard to get upset
You could equally argue the usual suspects are actually the ones that set the agenda in STW for what's consensus opinion and spend all their working day getting upset about the Tories but appear to be ignorant to the Red team's inability to push back on Conservative framing.
What does it take to realise that Reeves and Labour are shifting right?
I'm not sure anyone would dispute this. I think we all have the same concerns and ultimately are aiming for tbe same outcome, a fairer, more equitable and just society.
Some are pursuing a more idealistic "all or nothing and we want it now" approach, others have a more pragmatic "long time to turn the oil tanker approach", and both sides seek reports, or interpret reports, to suit their view.
The problem is, folk on both sides get assertive/aggressive when their view is even doubted, and we end up forming factions, and the politics of division kicks in, the tone and quality of debate plummets. Again.
And round it goes, day after day.
Generaly life has got a lot better since for example the 60s so why are more people struggling to cope? Its a shift in societal expectations
No its not. Whilst there have been improvements in some areas in other areas things have got a lot harder. A lot of gains were made postwar but they have been gradually abandoned either accidentally or deliberately.
Living standards are dropping and whilst in previous generations the youth generally did better than the parents this has now been reversed.
Obviously there are exception to this, mostly those born in the 50-60s who have been living a good life whilst not caring about the ladder being lifted behind them.
The problem for thatcherism is it works great until, as now, you have flogged off all the countries assets cheap and the bills are coming due.
When was the last time Labour added anything solid to the progressive agenda?
The £28 billion green pledge was widely considered to be a progressive proposal.
"Rachel Reeves’ commitment today to £28bn of new investment is in line with IPPR’s proposals. Boosting investment in the UK economy on at least this scale isn’t just good for nature and the climate – it's also sound economics.”
Some are pursuing a more idealistic “all or nothing and we want it now” approach, others have a more pragmatic “long time to turn the oil tanker approach”
Your wording really doesnt help matters does it? The announcement that your position is far more rational and the casual oversimplification of others positions to a "all or nothing".
I would have more faith in the self proclaimed pragmatists arguments if there was any real indication of that long term planning. Even just going to the following election and how they will deal with the inevitable things are still pretty shit and now the tories/reform will play hard on the "its all labours fault and forget what we did to cause it" would be a start.
Your wording really doesnt help matters does it?
Depends how sensitive to perceived criticism you are? I'm not saying my preferred option is correct.
I would have more faith in the self proclaimed pragmatists arguments if there was any real indication of that long term planning
So would I. But I'm not seeing from the other viewpoint either. Which is fair enough, we're a bunch of randoms on the internet, not the World Economic Forum.
Obviously there are exception to this, mostly those born in the 50-60s who have been living a good life whilst not caring about the ladder being lifted behind them.
As a Boomer type I have always cared that the ladder should be available to all. Your generalisation does you no favours and plays into the culture war age we are forced to endure by the current shower.
I was distictly under-impressed by the withdrawal of opportunity by the Blair government when tuition fees were introduced. The start of the current rot and a stain on the supposed party of the people.
Where do we draw the line between people in need and those that are a bit shit at life?
That wording has a very strong tory ****er vibe to it. Why do we need to draw a line and what does drawing the line actually mean - give those who are "a bit shit at life" an even harder time of it and make their lives even shitter.
What about trying to help people not be so shit at life, maybe those who are great at life could help in someway.
plays into the culture war age we are forced to endure by the current shower.
A much better way of phrasing where I was trying to go.
Generaly life has got a lot better since for example the 60s so why are more people struggling to cope?
That is such a strange comment bearing in mind that life has got a lot better than, for example, the 1800s, although one that I am sure Thatcher would approve of.
Since you ask the question let me give you the answer - a massive rise in inequality since the 60s.
45 years of relentless neoliberalism/Thatcherism has resulted in ever growing inequality. The very thing that the Labour Party was created to fight.
"Inequality has made the UK more unhealthy, unhappy and unsafe than our more equal peers,” said Priya Sahni-Nicholas, the co-executive director of the trust. “It is also causing huge damage to our economy: we have shorter healthy working lives, poorer education systems, more crime and less happy societies.”
Britain in the 1970s was one of the most equal of rich countries. Today, it is the second most unequal, after the US.
Better for some is the bit that clearly holds true.
Your generalisation does you no favours and plays into the culture war age we are forced to endure by the current shower.
Sorry I wasnt aware I was expected to fully caveat and footnote everything. I look forward to seeing you do the same.
The start of the current rot and a stain on the supposed party of the people.
Which then leads to the question of exactly what Starmer and co are doing to reverse it.
Which then leads to the question of exactly what Starmer and co are doing to reverse it.
How long will you give them?
How long does it take to reverse this amount of societal-level damage, while not increasing taxation, while not causing inflation, while trying to reverse [in some cases] a decade and a half of under-investment and lack of spending. Some things will need recreating literally from scratch (again).
but the bottom line is we have far too many economically inactivite people within our economy and it will need to be reduced.
Yes lets force people to work in pointless unfulfilling jobs which strips away any last vestige of mental health or sense of worth. I hate to break this to you, but with the AI revolution and automation growing exponentially there's going to be a lot more economically 'inactive' (why inactive? They still spend money) people around so we'd best start getting our heads around it. Of course the labour party won't, unlike the tories they hate the idea of people sitting around idle on benefits and delusionally think work is the main reason for living, but then they've always had an authoritarian streak which comes from their Marxist history. Time to think of new solutions to the 'work' problem, but the labour party won't be the ones to do it.
Britain in the 1970s was one of the most equal of rich countries. Today, it is the second most unequal, after the US.
Given how depressingly shit the 70’s were to live through you aren’t really selling the idea that a more equal society is a nice one to aspire to.
Given how depressingly shit the 70’s were to live through
I've said this before, but this all comes down to the conflict between economic security and individual rights. The 70s was a terrible time for individual rights, homophobia, mysoginy and racism where rife, but people were relatively secure economically. No one had much debt, they had a roof over their heads and access to public services. They also lived in mutually supportive communities where people had a sense of collective responsibility. Now it's the opposite, we have amazing individual rights (despite a few issues), but very little economic security, we're up to the eyes in debt and we live in an individualistic everyone for themselves society. The task for progressive politicians is to combine both, but no one has figured it out yet, largely because we cling on to an economic system which isn't fit for purpose. Witness Rachel Reeves harking back to bloody Thatcher. Utterly clueless.
Which then leads to the question of exactly what Starmer and co are doing to reverse it.
On present evidence I won't be holding my breath.
And one doesn't need to footnote or reference, one does need to choose words with care though (and I' can be as guilty as everyone else for intemperate written language).
How long will you give them?
Its not me thats important (given your explanation of the obvious I am surprised you missed that) but the public as a whole.
So they get five years max.
At which point the hard right will have been banging the populist drum hard and announcing everything bad happened in those five years.
Which is an obvious problem for those who are supporting the do tory policies but slightly less so.
It will leave the country still screwed and help normalise those policies so the tories can go even further next time. As indeed they did after Blair.
So the obvious question is what are they going to get in place which will show things are improving and also not be immediately reversable by the tories.
There is one thing which ticks the box but that seems off the table under Starmer.
Where do we draw the line between people in need and those that are a bit shit at life?
I wonder why people might be shit at life these days? Perhaps because life has become a lot harder to succeed at?
How long will you give them?
How long does it take to reverse this amount of societal-level damage, while not increasing taxation, while not causing inflation, while trying to reverse [in some cases] a decade and a half of under-investment and lack of spending. Some things will need recreating literally from scratch (again).
No one is asking for miracles on day one or even miracles but maybe just have a plan that leans against what has failed.
You talk inflation and taxation - okay so they are linked and inflation created through government spending can be controlled with taxation. If there's too much money and the economy overheats you zap some out with taxation (ideally from the top. boom.)
That's unlikely to happen though as there are far too many areas that can use a bit of resource and labour without overcrowding the private sector.
We're a long way from that though which means wherever there's a gap in infrastructure (a societal deficit if you will) you can allocate government spending to fix it.
The politics is picking the important bit first. Broad strokes - pretty logical to head towards energy and the NHS - in my opinion. And personally for instant-ish fixes I'd be bringing Water into state ownership - and trimming those bills for people. Nothing too Communist about all of that. Just sensible and totally affordable and would get people on side. Then let's have a long term plan for transport/infrastructure investment which I know would take time but the jobs/work it would generate would be much needed. Some Police investment to reverse the Tory cuts. Nothing scary at all. Then you've got housing supply - big issues there to sort out. It's definitely going to take time, but new governments need something in the first 100 days to hit the public with. That's the usual expectation.
If we don't do something even approaching all that expect even worse outcomes.
For Labour to actually pick something would be a start - instead of Reeves framing everything back to front.
Labour just don't seem to recognise the problems need a bottom up approach. They're not even going in that direction and are doomed by using ridiculous economic logic (that growth stems from private sector first before we can spend.)
Until they crack that and put it the right way around we will keeping banging our head against a wall.
All the evidence is out there that we're not even close to optimising how the government provisions itself - to then go on to generate a dynamic private sector that they all want!
Given how depressingly shit the 70’s were to live through
Ah the much loved Tory mantra which people believe because, well because it must true as everyone keeps repeating it.
Even though Tories occasionally boast how things are now as good as they were in the 1970s.
And yet they still get away with it because no one challenges them by saying "hang on a minute, I thought everything was really shit in the 70s?"
And that's just on the issue of people living on unemployment benefits without pointing out that there was also no NHS waiting lists, less inequality, less crime, no pointless foreign wars, etc etc
I wonder why people might be shit at life these days? Perhaps because life has become a lot harder to succeed at?
Life has been shit to them.