Forum menu
Meanwhile those of us who actually understand how things work quietly get on with the job doing the boring hard miles and actually make positive sustainable improvements.
No one is claiming it’s easy, quite the opposite. But the current narrative coming from mainstream parties is that it’s unaffordable which is total bollocks. What’s worse? Trying to do something and failing, or not bothering at all?
"Let’s not improve things because someone on the internet said it’s going to be tough."
FFS, absolutely no one has said this apart from you, because it doesn’t fit your preferred narrative.
We need to push for improvements as quickly as we can - that involves planning, recruitment, training, resources, msterials and all of those require time to make sure the money we're throwing at it is not wasted getting carried away and ****ing up.
Let’s not improve things because someone on the internet said it’s going to be tough.
FFS, absolutely no one has said this apart from you
Which I assume is why it wasn't offered as an actual quote. I believe that the correct term is 'paraphrasing'.
Which in relation to what was being said is quite reasonable imo. There seems to be an attitude by some that it better not to bother that to try and then fail.
What’s worse? Trying to do something and failing, or not bothering at all?
According to our very likely next Secretary of State for Health trying to do something and failing is worse than not bothering at all.
In fact he goes as far as saying that no hope is better than false hope. Yup, he is indeed offering us a large dollop of "no hope". And apparently we should be grateful for that.
"False hope is worse than no hope. Labour won’t make promises it can’t keep"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/09/labour-promises-tory-mismanagement-public-finances
I particularly liked the last paragraph in that article:
"Imagine Britain leading the G7 with the highest sustained economic growth, with a million more jobs in green energy"
After making the case of not making promises that might not be delivered he then offers his readers the sunlit uplands. How on earth can he guarantee that the other six G7 countries will perform worse than the UK under a Labour government?
And where are those "million more jobs in green energy" going to come from? Since writing that piece Starmer and Reeves have abandoned the hope they temporarily gave us with their £28bn green pledge. In fact it turned out to be nothing more than false hope.
Streeting concludes his piece with:
A platform you can trust us to deliver
In reality less than 12 months later you cannot even trust what he actually wrote in that article.
"Let’s not improve things because someone on the internet said it’s going to be tough.
What hell kind of logic is this?"
Dunno, you might get an answer if you tag the person who actually said that because from here it all looks like a leap on your part.
Nobody is saying do nothing, what people are saying is that expecting meaningful results for that specific example within a year is daft.
"There are some people who get stuff done and others who just put up excuses. I will leave it at that."
Jesus wept, Douglas Renham was parody ffs...
Sigh - we've already got no hope.
I'm glad we've decided to not bother - just let the wealthy have their cake then. No point moaning about the Tories if there's no point then.
False hope is worse than no hope. Labour won’t make promises it can’t keep
Spot on.
And where are those “million more jobs in green energy” going to come from?
The switch to renewables by 2030, and improving our housing stock and business processes.
I’d prefer more of those jobs to be in the public than private sector through much higher state investment, but the pushing of these green issues with policy will create them anyway.
I’m glad we’ve decided to not bother
Who said that? You’ve decided it’s your way or no way.
False hope is worse than no hope. Labour won’t make promises it can’t keep
Spot on.
If you agree with that claim by Streeting then perhaps you can explain why he is talking about Britian leading the G7 with the highest sustained economic growth, whilst describing it as "a platform you can trust us to deliver".
He cannot not possibly know that a Labour government will deliver the highest sustained economic growth of the G7.
And if they don't it will have turned out to have been a "false hope". Streeting doesn't even bother sticking to his own "don't offer false hope" mantra.
If no hope is better than false hope, as Streeting boldly claims, surely he should be trumpeting the fact that it is very unlikely that under a Labour government that the UK will have the highest sustained economic growth of the G7?
Spot on.
And that is why we have a politics which delivers crumbling public services and next to nothing for normal people. If those of us who claim to hate what the tories stand for can’t summon the will to to do better then there’s no point. Depressing.
Again, no one is saying they don’t want, and expect, better… except the same naysayers over and over again looking to blame Labour for the state the country has become under the Tories. And these same people are already looking to blame Labour for how long it is going to take to fix the damage… before they are even in government… they might not even make it into government! The ship will take time to turn around once/if the Conservatives are moved on… promising the economy and society can change direction on a sixpence would be a mistake… for all the reasons already outlined.
except the same naysayers over and over again looking to blame Labour for the state the country has become under the Tories.
Did you write that nonsense with a straight face? No one has blamed "Labour for the state the country has become under the Tories". What a truly ridiculous claim.
And the "naysayers" are those who have given up and are claiming that Labour cannot be expected to make a very significant difference - which is all that anyone is asking for.
Not silly claims about the highest sustained economic growth of the G7. something which is just as likely unachievable as achievable and is directly linked to how well other G7 countries perform - being 3rd if they all perform really well will be great, being first if they all perform really badly not so much.
And yet over and over again the same couple of individuals will back whatever Starmer says, even if it is the complete opposite to what he said the previous month, and which they also totally supported.
For them we have in Starmer the perfect politician who never says anything wrong. Or so it would appear.
And yet over and over again the same couple of individuals will back whatever Starmer says, even if it is the complete opposite to what he said the previous month, and which they also totally supported.
Simple maths puts them in their place.
Ms Reeves said Labour would "not waver from strong fiscal rules", and it would continue with the Conservative's current rule that public debt must be falling as a share of the economy by the fifth year of an official forecast.
Reduce the public 'debt' you reduce the government's contribution to the economy. Bye bye growth, bye bye state investment and bye bye any semblance of improvement.
That's called not even having a go.
But somehow they will spin that as a good thing. Let's get behind Reeves and Starmer because the ace in their pack is they're not going to do anything at all.
Genius thinking that and something to get behind.
It will totally fall apart very quickly.
And these same people are already looking to blame Labour for how long it is going to take to fix the damage
You are missing the point spectacularly although not unexpected.
From day 1 they will be held accountable and we will be told that it is all down to them.
That they are binding themselves to act like the tories wont help them. The tories will deny all knowledge just like they complain about deregulation resulting in a lot of the problems in 2008 despite their only issue at the time is the deregulation wasnt extreme enough.
They have a limited time to deliver change.
If they dont then people will be looking elsewhere and the populist right, despite causing most of the damage, will be happy to take advantage.
They have to provide a clear cut line between them and the tories. Serving the centrists vs everyone else will just help the populist line of they are all the same.
So in 2029 we will be screwed.
"I’m glad we’ve decided to not bother"
Direct quote please, put up or shut up.
Labour says it will stick with workers’ rights plans despite Mandelson remarks
"Keir Starmer’s new deal for working people would give employees more rights such as protections against unfair dismissal, sick pay and parental leave from day one but many business groups are lobbying to water it down."
Excellent news - both the proposed employee enhanced rights and the fact that Starmer has chosen to ignore the Prince of Darkness.
How any member of the Labour Party can claim that it is acceptable to unfairly dismiss someone in the first two years of their employment is beyond me.
Prince of Darkness.
How any member of the Labour Party can claim that it is acceptable to unfairly dismiss someone in the first two years of their employment is beyond me.
I think you answered your own question there.
Rupert Soames, the new president of the CBI, told the FT last month that the UK needed to avoid a “European model” of employment rights and resist excessive regulation that undermined productivity in order to rediscover its competitiveness.
God forbid we do anything they do. It's not really anything new though is it? It's just rewinding the clock with a little extra (day 1 as opposed to 2 months). Have they actually come out and said that though? Restoring rather than making something new.
Ed Miliband still exists... popping up today to talk about the new publicly owned power generation company... and the 2030 goal for fossil fuel free electricity generation...
[ I'm listening to PM on Radio4... presume he's doing the rounds though ]
Labour says it will stick with workers’ rights plans despite Mandelson remarks
I would rather they hadn't voiced their support for the reforms, now they have it can only be a matter of time until the inevatable u-turn.
There are some people who get stuff done and others who just put up excuses. I will leave it at that.
I've worked for many Managers and 'Leaders' over the years who spouted bollox like this too.
One of the benefits of having spent 30 years in a audit-type roles is having the ability & experience to see straight through these kind of people AND write their 'post-mortems' 🙂
He's done that many U-turns, what's the odds that once elected he U-turns again and turns out to be an orthodox Trotskyist republican and Reeves starts banging on about absolute and relative surplus value?
Hmmmm, thought not.
I have no idea if Starmer will perform a U-turn on workers rights, hopefully he won't. But I do know that that Starmer is occasionally consistent and reliable over certain things.
This includes being supportive of Israelis who are accused of war crimes. Back in the days when he was Director of Public Prosecutions he used his position to protect an Israeli politician who faced arrest for alleged war crimes.
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL5E7L62ND/
"Britain's Director of Public Prosecutions has blocked an attempt to seek the arrest of Israeli opposition leader Tzipi Livni for alleged war crimes during a visit to Britain, officials said on Thursday."
European prosecutors were less sympathetic than Starmer over Israeli politicians accused of war crimes
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/1/23/tzipi-livni-cancels-brussels-trip-amid-threat-of-arrest
"Ex-foreign minister cancels Brussels visit after prosecutors said they would question her over war crimes allegations."
Starmer - consistently helping Israeli politicians accused of war crimes over many years.
As I said, UK law… put in place by a government without any Labour involvement. What’s the complaint here then, that he did his job… but you’d rather he acted as he if was creating law not acting within it? What would the basis of arrest be? How would that get around UK law?
As for the lack of transparency… who’s decision is it now to withhold the details of the process that occurred back then… and is there anything unusual about that happening in this case?
It's his previous employer's decision what to release under FOI, and when starmer was employed as a lawyer it was his job to advise on the law, and make prosecution decisions accordingly.
I expect to see more of these types of empty smear as an election nears.
Maybe it's worth looking two years earlier when Livni had the same issue with universal jurisdiction charges against her, which were dropped and she got an apology from the PM, Gordon Brown, at the time.
I believe there are groups with links in the middle east who raise these charges in Europe and the UK against a lot of Israeli personnel, i don't think there's ever been an arrest made under this of an Israeli official, anywhere, but hey, that would ruin yet another 'it's all Keir's fault' post from some fringe lunatic off twitter 🤣
Mark Blyth knows his economics.
https://twitter.com/MkBlyth/status/1772557398697201977?t=TmBKADmIAf3QscwvQk5r4A&s=19
I bet he's proud of what he's done to keep Assange incarcerated without trial, 'don't you dare' drop the allegations to the Swedes. Sums him up.
https://twitter.com/sjwrenlewis/status/1773256490884751605?t=ec0h6cD74ABvOSjw3YoVtg&s=19
Well yeah of course.
https://twitter.com/StephanieKelton/status/1773323982990610865?t=h8ulZY74rQmXhrOjAz4J7Q&s=19
Oh.
https://twitter.com/Feargal_Sharkey/status/1773252137440395616?t=GwhZsz8841Ism_5oSKgLZg&s=19
Got ya.
Do it once and **** them all off.
I'm sure there will be someone along in minute to defend Sunak and Starmer's position on this. Because they're the same.
https://twitter.com/premnsikka/status/1674163643196354560?t=V8H23WxRqBKPovZHh3iAaQ&s=19
Imagine pursuing neoliberal solutions when all you end up with is a shit fest?
Worthwhile posting this here, You’ve probably heard of Gary by now.
Yeah I watch him a fair bit.
Look at Reform in this poll:
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1773287328137531826?t=Xz0fyImiYgnzto_Tjmj3DA&s=19
https://twitter.com/wethinkpolling/status/1773364694352322780
The very latest opinion poll, which was conducted today and yesterday, gives Reform UK a much less generous level of support.
The YouGov poll giving Labour only 40% share of the vote is worrying. That is exactly the same level of support that Labour received in the 2017 general election - which they didn't win.
Obviously the big difference is that the Tories are now deeply unpopular and losing a significant amount of votes to Reform UK, but with a margin of error of about 3% if Reform UK voters suddenly back the Tories on election day, the very thing papers like the Daily Mail and the Sun might urge them to do, it could deny Starmer a majority.
Which would be a disaster in my opinion - even more claims of the need to "compromise" undoubtedly.
Just shows around 35% of voters really don't care. To bump up their vote share though Labour need to move further right or at least appeal more to the leftish end on the conservative voters. Moving leftwards might hoover up a few Lib dem / green votes but the bulk of votes needed are more right wing.
The worrying thing is people still hate Labour, many can't get over the Corbynesque caricatures.
Had a really depressing conversation the other day with a neighbour, typical working class Tory, got his own business having worked his way up from being on the tools, it's all the fault of immigrants and the conservatives have looked after him (business grants, Covid support etc. all on the back of him probably not declaring everything through the books, it's the sort of business that can put jobs through cash without leaving a trace). The most mental thing he said was all Labour politicians are corrupt and looking out for themselves, bit rich given his (probable) tax avoidance status, but eff me given the behaviour of the Tories over the last 10 years he still levelled that accusation at Labour MPs. Really don't know what Labour need to do to overcome dyed in the wool prejudice like that.
Mind you he topped it off saying he thought he might vote reform. When I pointed out Reform are effectively a privately run vehicle for various mouth pieces bank rolled by a really dubious individual his eyes just glazed over, cos you know immigrants and stuff.
One thing that is signalling the white flag for the tories is the amount of MPs who are not standing at the next election, this will mean a lot of fighting going on within the tory party for nominations, will Rishi get his type of candidate, or are the weirdo's at the right of him going to start pushing for their candidates.
Labour just need to not get bogged down in any of the fighting, or any of the negative press, which is already spinning up with the usual 'do you still beat your wife' questions for the labour leadership.
To bump up their vote share though Labour need to move further right
I know it sounds crazy but how about not doing that and instead coming up with a compelling argument which makes the case for alternative policies and points out that Tory right-wing policies are wrong?
You cannot expect voters to believe your policies are correct if you have so little faith in them yourself.
Really don’t know what Labour need to do to overcome dyed in the wool prejudice like that.
But you just gave your solution - move further right.
Meh whatever, the point is there's a large number of ignorant voters out there which kinda blows your argument out of the water regarding compelling arguments, they arent listening full stop. The other fact is there's more votes to the right of Labour than to the left. FWIW I wasnt suggesting Labour move further to the right, more that shift back to the left before the election would be suicidal. As a despised centrist I'm quite happy with Labour's current placement, ironic really as given my background and current income levels which should make me a solid Tory supporter but I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire. But then I've paid attention to the appalling policies and behaviour of the current Tory regime, shame a few more haven't.
The most mental thing he said was all Labour politicians are corrupt and looking out for themselves, bit rich given his (probable) tax avoidance status, but eff me given the behaviour of the Tories over the last 10 years he still levelled that accusation at Labour MPs
I keep hearing stuff like this and it's insane. Maybe there are some bad apples in Labour but **** me, how the hell can you prefer to stick with the Tories after their proven track record of greed and corruption.
I tend to start my response with "lying g to tne Queen" as it seems to make them pay attention.
I wasnt suggesting Labour move further to the right
Yes you did. "To bump up their vote share though Labour need to move further right" is what you said.
I love the way you dismiss the suggestion that Labour need to come up with compelling arguments for their policies btw,.
Do you understand how politics works, not just in the UK but throughout the world? No it doesn't simply rely on stealing your political opponents clothes.
The other fact is there’s more votes to the right of Labour than to the left.
Those votes aren't automatic.
If the main parties keep telling people how amazing all these conservative policies are - and given no choice - who the hell are they going to vote for?
You appear to be falling into the trap of hating the Tories but if done properly conservatism could be good for us.
The policy is the problem. And left wing policies are popular.
Maybe it would, that's the point of proper politics, people have different opinikns on how to get to a better society. Unfortunatrly we have the reality TV version of politics the Tories champion. Not everybody believes the chuck money approach would actually work or give us the desired outcome of a more equitable society.
But to be honest I can't be bothered discussing this further as there will be the inevitable pile on from the usual suspects as an actually debate isn't allowed and anyone right of Corbyn is selfish scum.
Yes you did. “To bump up their vote share though Labour need to move further right” is what you said.
Well yes apart from that minor detail.
I do also like how they announce that despite being a natural tory they are now happy with labour without thinking hmmmm is there a problem there?
Its the depressing thing about the right wingers. After ****ing up the country and their party they now want labour as a consolation prize rather than putting the work into getting a sensible tory party back.
And there we go...
First I'm not Tory and haven't voted Tory for a very long time, hell I voted for Corbyn's Labour. The point I was trying to make is that the current Tory party has lost its core vote by moving into batshit mental territory, this is good for Labour.
Second I don't consider myself to be right wing, I believe, actually you know what I can't be bothered, you won't bother reading what I write, you'll just be insulting and misconstrued what I say.
Politics doesn't need to be so confrontational and tribal, Corbyn actually had that right. My views have changed since being a member of this forum, my views have definitely moved leftward, shame the dullards in this thread arent able to discuss different view points without being so closed and confrontational to any idea that doesn't fit their narrative.
the dullards in this thread arent able to discuss different view points without being so closed and confrontational
The problem with lack of awareness is that people aren't aware of their lack of awareness.
I point out that a YouGov poll out today has Labour's share of the vote at exactly the same level as they got in the 2017 general election, which is slightly worrying not least because if the Tories draw back some of the support they have lost to Reform UK on election day it might rob Starmer of a majority..
Your immediate response, from the person who talks of usual suspects, is to very predictably claim that Labour need to move further right. When this is challenged, you, also very predictably, accuse others of being confrontational, after calling them dullards.
I do agree with you that politics doesn't have to be "confrontational and tribal". So that's at least one thing.
And there we go…
Did I miss something the mods deleted? I saw some mild discussion where a couple of people offered a different opinion, is that what a ‘pile-on’ is now?
Always amused that the lefties on here are always accused of being abusive or argumentative when in reality they’re always on the receiving end. Classic social media cancellation. If someone disagrees, accuse them of being abusive. Or in the case of this place, bang on about thread derailment. 🙄
@dazh it's nothing to do with left vs right, it's a combination of people's inability to write, peoples inability to read and the tendency of some people to just plain make shit up to suit or cause an argument. On both sides.
@stumpyjon to be fair that wasn't how you came across in your posts, I certainly read it the same as others did. Now you've cleared that up I'd like to think people will act on that but frankly, for the reasons above, I doubt it.
I think that brings the total to approximately one hundred councillors who have resigned from the Labour Party in the last six months.
That is a lot of councillors for a party which is clearly on an electoral winning streak to lose.
Luckily for Labour because Starmer is of little threat to the establishment, and the Tory press don't have much of a problem with him, it doesn't produce much in the way of negative headlines.
1.5% not a staggeringly large percentage and all on basically the same (whilst globally important) side issue for UK politics. I doubt Starmer is that worried either, saves him having to purge a load more outliers and hopefully avoids another Rochdale type cock up. The latest 20 are from Pendle which is not very representative of Labour areas as a whole, bit like Rochdale isn't. It's a single issue protest, and one that's not that direcrly relevant to the daily lives of most people in this country.
Starmer doesn't have to be worried but it's a gift to the opposition. No matter the reason they don't want to hold power in his party. That will be spun for all it's worth. Labour are not great at timing their implosions.
Yeah, I doubt that, the Tories haven't made a big deal out of the other councillor resignations. The reason for their resignation does not fit well with Tory ideology either so can't see them wanting to be seen to be supporting the Pendle councillors over this, it's not exactly on Tory brand. It's not even on the BBC website front page, it's hidden in the Lancashire section.
saves him having to purge a load more outliers
You say that like it's a good thing. Personally I find the authoritarianism purging of progressive voices from labor rather disturbing, the fabrication of "evidence" to be used against labour members and activists does not bode well for the direction a Starmer government would take.
Starmer might not need to be worried, but we should be.
Er yes, anything that stops Labour having an internal implosion as onehundredthidiot puts it makes them more likely to actually get into power, which is as we keep having to remind people on this thread is a good thing. Anyway it's not like purging the dissenters is a Starmer thing, Corbyn had a pretty good go but mucked it up like everything else he did. It's also a big leap from a few councillors resigning over a non core side issue to authoritarianism purging of progressive voices. I'm pretty sure the councillors involved were not the parties most progressive visionaries.
I'm a lot less worried about purging of the fringes of the Labour party to the wholesale purging of anyone with half a grip on reality from the government. Let's get things in proportion and remember why we're in this mess.
Let’s get things in proportion and remember why we’re in this mess
We're in this damn mess because of failed Conservative policies - the like of which Starmer and co are showing no signs of moving away from.
Centrists are only adding more pain to the long term discourse with this ridiculous pathway of election vibes at all cost.
I think that brings the total to approximately one hundred councillors
Labour have currently nearly 6500 councillors in the UK, and I'd bet money that more than 100 hand in their notice, or don't stand again each time there's elections for any number of reasons, that will go from pretty mundane - too much work, not enough time, etc etc all the way to folks who've been side-lined for offences or disagreements or sacked. 20 in one council seems like a lot, but in the grand scheme of things, probably doesn't shift the dial much.
this ridiculous pathway of election vibes at all cost.
You're so right it's the taking part that counts.
which is as we keep having to remind people on this thread is a good thing.
As we keep having to remind you its not so simple as that. Where do you draw the line at getting power?
Anyway it’s not like purging the dissenters is a Starmer thing, Corbyn had a pretty good go but mucked it up like everything else he did
Did he? I am sure you can provide the evidence showing Corbyn supporting this claim?
It’s also a big leap from a few councillors resigning over a non core side issue to authoritarianism purging of progressive voices.
Uh huh and yet compass and other centre left organisations have been targeted by Starmers team and dont have the same confidence you have in the glorious leader.
Uh huh and yet compass and other centre left organisations have been targeted by Starmers team
Neal Lawson (head of Compass) was told off by Labour for publishing support for another party (The Greens) last summer in a tweet, that's basic Labour party rules. While you might support pluralism, and tactical voting, the official party line is that you don't. So y'know, make a choice, accept the party line and support only Labour candidates, or don't, and risk expulsion. But to make it look like you're being "targeted" by Starmer's team, certainly makes it sound much more Machiavellian and exciting
You’re so right it’s the taking part that counts.
Said no-one. Though some of us care about what happens on day two.
A little reminder that Neal Lawson in this case wasn't promoting tactical voting to get Tories out, he was voicing support for Green party candidates to replace Labour councillors with the help of LibDems candidates stepping aside. Yes, that's tactical voting... but when you're supporting its use against the party you're a member of... it's not going to go down so well. Even if it's ignored or welcomed when the same tactics are used against sitting Conservatives.
There's plenty more examples, Google Corbyn sackings.
As we keep having to remind you its not so simple as that.
Ok you're right, better to be politically nuanced and powerless.
Where do you draw the line at getting power, well at the moment let's start with not doing anything illegal and not demonizing parts of society for cheap votes. I think that would put the country in a much better place than it is today.
Sacking people from the front bench isn't the same as purging them from the party.
Yes, that’s tactical voting… but when you’re supporting its use against the party you’re a member of… it’s not going to go down so well.
A little reminder that as with most things with Starmer, including antisemitism, the willingness to enforce things does seem rather dependant on how other political views align with Starmers own.
There’s plenty more examples, Google Corbyn sackings.
Errr yes. You do understand the difference between not being in the shadow cabinet and being expelled from the party, right?
So your examples are getting off to a bad start. Especially when you consider the fact that in order to sack them Corbyn gave them the job to begin with. Not something which would happen under Starmers narrow church. Well aside from when he tried it with Rayner and failed since he wasnt able to rig the system quite that far, yet.
Ok you’re right, better to be politically nuanced and powerless.
As ever your strawmanning is only matched by your whining when people treat you like you treat others.
I see you admit there should be some nuance so perhaps thats progress. Of course you might want to think about why the tories are going for those options and the problems of labour following them rightwards.
If anything, I would say that Corbyn didn't do enough to shape the party in his image. You could make the (pretty convincing) argument that politically he couldn't, but aside from that; there's no way that you can compare the Labour leadership's view on dissent in the ranks then and now. Starmer is much more active in this area.
Starmer is much more active in this area.
Somewhat of an understatement but there lies the problem. Its a party and not a one man organisation.
As all the right wingers were keen on during Corbyns time but soon binned off the "broad church" as soon as it ended.
The leader does need to be able to represent and give all sides of the party some input.
Otherwise how can he do so for the country as a whole as PM?
Its a party and not a one man organisation.
But as Corbyn's (and Sunak's for that matter) time has showed if nothing else, unless you've got your hands firmly on the steering wheel, some-one else is going to grab it and take it where they want it. Labour has always (right from the get go) been a divided organisation, and beholden to it's factionalism to a greater or lesser extent, right now it's being driven by the centre and right of the party, and no wonder. It won't last forever, it never has.
20 in one council seems like a lot, but in the grand scheme of things, probably doesn’t shift the dial much.
It seems a lot because 20 councillors all resigning at the same time from one council is a lot.
And it isn't the only mass resignation of councillors to have occurred recently. Labour has now lost control of four or five councils due to councillors resigning from the Labour Party.
However much you might dismiss it as inconsequential it is certainly not normal. And with the mass resignations of those councillors will be ordinary party members, including the foot soldiers that do much of the hard work at election time, so they are taking effective electoral expertise with them.
I certainly would not want to overstate the significance of this recent development but it could indeed prove quite significant. At the moment they are just "independent" on councils but we also have a few Labour Party MPs without the party whip, and former Labour mayor Jamie Driscoll is standing with RMT backing as an independent in the North East.
There is a lot of talk throughout the country of former Labour Party members standing as independents with support from other former Labour Party members. Eventually it will make sense for them to coordinate their activities and get themselves a name beyond just independents.
Personally I think they are jumping the gun and now is not the time to form a new party, if for no other reason than that the electorate has not imo reached the conclusion that another political party is necessary. The Labour vote might be very soft but there still appears to be this belief that a Labour government will deliver something significantly better.
It’s no surprise that starmer is loosing councillors, I imagine he’s going to lose a helluva lot more as well as mp’s willing to stand under Labour with this mealy mouthed response. William Dalrymple nails him below
I was at a local community iftar yesterday evening to raise money for Medical Aid for Palestine. There were three speakers (all British) two of them surgeons, one has recently been working treating the injured at the Nasser hospital in Gaza - the stories he told, such as the children having limbs amputated without an aesthetic, were challenging to listen to.
But the most interesting was the one he told of how one morning the IDF refused to let him travel from their safe house (it was safe because it was isolated from any other building in the middle of nowhere and therefore could not be accidentally hit - the IDF knew in contained medical staff) later on that same day it was targeted by an Israeli F-16 and very seriously damaged. This was the event:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-bombed-british-doctors-deconflicted-site-gaza-mps-hear
Last night's speaker was one of the four British doctors mentioned in that article.
I have to say to say that I have recently become impressed my Alice Kearns apparent determination to hold Israel accountable for war crimes.
The third speaker was Mike Cushman whose grandparents fled the Russian pogroms and is chairman of Jewish Voice for Labour. He has actually been expelled from the Labour Party for anti-semitism. Although "for criticising Israel" would be more precise.
Had some visitors at work today
I did not push Rache on MMT
Bounce....bounce....bounce....bounce....all the way to the bottom.
That was a play on words in relation to their polices btw
Had some visitors at work today
I did not push Rache on MMT
🤣🤣🤣
But must be making progress 'cos even the old Guardian was coming around at the weekend .
https://twitter.com/StuartKells/status/1774936215449694271?t=q2D-kjCZQIO6WHkk0xWvbA&s=19
As with money created through bank lending, money created through government spending does not persist and circulate indefinitely through the economy. The slightly shocking and dispiriting reality is that, when you pay your taxes, the money doesn’t go into an account or a vault. It is vaporised. The tax payments cancel out the money that was created at the time of the original government spending.
is it/thre
This seems at odds with The Daily Mail's usual stance on Labour. Have I missed a change of editor, or are the rats leaving the sinking ship?
No change in the DM editorial team. They will have wanted the Starmer article about Trident, as they know it appeals to their readership and the DM's first priority - ahead of party politics - is to tell their readers what they want to hear. They also need to cosy up to Labour, as it is a bad look for them to be seen as backing a losing horse (the Tories). It works for Starmer too, as it is the most read paper. His contribution will have been conditional on final approval of the article and headline.
Starmer has found the magic money tree for defense spending!
Excellent - he can now find some cash for other things then the absolute Conservative showman.
Always the damn same. Our leaders are dismal.
(Not saying we shouldn't spend on defence but like the USA the lack of money arguments tends to go away for military spending )
With Starmer's and Reeves's much vaunted commitment to fiscal prudence I can't imagine them shaking the money tree, the money must come from elsewhere surely?
To be fair the UK's WMDs are obviously very expensive but I am surprised that the Tories haven't attached as much importance to them as Starmer apparently does.
Although presumably there will be a U-turn on this policy in a couple of months time?
Although presumably there will be a U-turn on this policy in a couple of months time?
Given his 100% record I think that is a given.
Wonder who he is going to choose as his new deputy. I thought Rayner had an appeal that Starmer didn't so will be bad to lose here but I think she will go as it seems pretty clear that she did not actually live at her primary residence. A pretty stupid thing to go for but as alway Labour seem to need to be angels whereas the tories would just brush it off and carry on.
Pretty much a non-story, Trident is a deal that the UK and US are signed up to for a long time, same with the Dreadnought class submarines, they have been allotted funding, so all SKS is saying is the usual political speech to get votes.
One thing i do think could help Labour over their term if they win will be defence, it could be a way for us to slip back into the EU with the current climate in Europe, and the world, especially if Trump gets in and the US start reducing support to Ukraine.
Pretty much a non-story
I don't think Keir Starmer announcing that the next Labour government will increase military spending to 2.5% of GDP, whilst simultaneously saying that the next Labour government won't be able to do stuff it wants to do because of lack of money, is "a non-story".
Which presumably is why it has been widely reported.