Forum menu
I've yet to see a decently constructed argument in support of Starmer.
It's all about Corbyn was xxx so Starmer is the answer.
He's only the answer for right-wing Labour. That's it. Nothing else.
Even his amazing touted electability has been a damp squib.
So not sure what exactly he's offering other than very low Labour aspirations.
It wasn’t the RW press that told me Corbyn was a t***, He managed to do that all by himself.
Classy. I'm sure that the usual suspects will all be piling in to denounce the tone of this thread.
Aye, right.
He's guarded against saying the neoliberal agenda he is offering so it all comes out as word-salad respect, security, decency, equiwobble, safe supply, good for business. He looks like he embarrasses himself, he doesn't look like his own man at all.
Perhaps Keir Starmer should read this.
https://bylinetimes.com/2022/07/01/government-and-capitalism-a-new-economic-narrative-for-the-left/
I think the title would put him off. Only last week Starmer publicly redefined the Labour Party as a party of the centre, not the left.
Tbh I didn't read much of the article beyond the claimed historical background to the neo-liberal model, which I felt seemed over-simplistic at best.
Tbh I didn’t read much of the article beyond the claimed historical background to the neo-liberal model, which I felt seemed over-simplistic at best.
You won't get a more on point UK economist than Richard Murphy. (Along with Mark Blyth and Danny Blanchflower perhaps)
He understands the government's financial operations like no one else.
And actually economists like him are absolutely key to the left's future. He did co-author the original green new deal.
Well I think he missed the point when he appeared to suggest that the postwar consensus collapsed due to the end of the empire and the alleged desire of voters for more economic freedom. Even if that were true, and I am not entirely convinced that it is, it was nevertheless more complex than that.
I am not challenging his expertise on taxation issues though, just his over-simplistic explanation for the collapse of the postwar consensus.
beyond the claimed historical background to the neo-liberal model, which I felt seemed over-simplistic at best.
Of course it was simplistic, it was a few sentences when you could write a book on it. Doesn’t make the broad thrust of it wrong though. Personally I always preferred David Graebers analysis, that the collapse of the postwar social democratic model was a result of widening social and political inequalities as a result of economic policies which largely benefitted white men, and not being able to respond to the demand for economic equality by women and ethnic minorities. I think we forget just how much society and the world changed in the late 60s and early 70s, and we’re at a similar transition point now.
Personally I always preferred David Graebers analysis, that the collapse of the postwar social democratic model was a result of widening social and political inequalities as a result of economic policies which largely benefitted white men, and not being able to respond to the demand for economic equality by women and ethnic minorities.
Eh? That makes even less sense imo. Inequality in the UK fell for all the postwar period up until 1979.
And if it did indeed not benefit women and ethic minorities is it seriously being suggested that they rejected social democracy in favour of neo-liberalism/thatcherism?
It wasn't the losers who backed Thatcher in 79 it was those who were in fact relative winners. Ironically social democracy became a victim of its own success.
Skilled highly unionised and well paid workers from the UK's industrial heartland, plus their aspirational university educated children, were seduced by Thatcher's appeal to their personal and selfish greed. Despite the fact that they owned their relative prosperity and life chances to social democracy.
A small minority bought into the scam dream, although many subsequently paid the price through unemployment, destroyed industries, the collapse of social cohesion, rising crime, etc. But it was a sufficient minority to tip the balance in Thatcher's favour and finally bury the postwar social democratic consensus.
It was also helped in no small way by the right-wing within the Labour movement which deliberately attacked the LP forming a rival party and thereby guaranteeing Thatcher and the neo-liberals remained in power.
Which is of course exactly what the right-wing have done again recently only this time they decided that they could do the maximum amount of damage by remaining in the party, although there was at one time talk of forming a rival party.
They were of course again highly successful and have guaranteed that the Labour Party will not be a vehicle for a return to social democracy anytime soon.
Labour will never get elected whilst that far left crazy faction of the party keeps playing these games.
I'm a liberal socialist for want of a better term, and I'd happily vote labour, rather than lib dem.. but (some) labour voters seem to be so blindly hard-core, it's quite worrying. Almost as mad as the tories..
Can we please just focus on getting the conservatives out of power?
Eh? That makes even less sense imo.
I didn’t describe it very well TBF. It wasn’t a case of minorities and women choosing a rightwing alternative to the largely socialist policies of the post-war period. It was a result of the US and UK governments deciding they couldn’t afford to give women and ethnic minorities the same benefits that white men received. So they traded economic rights for political rights and replaced the economic benefits with cheap debt.
Here you go... (actually wasn't Graeber's idea, but some Italian marxists)
Labour will never get elected whilst that far left crazy faction of the party keeps playing these games.
What far left crazy faction and what games?
Can we please just focus on getting the conservatives out of power?
Sure. Do you think Starmer is doing well on that front seeing that if there were an election tomorrow he would lose against the most shocking PM we have ever had and the worst and most useless government and cabinet I have seen in my lifetime.
Labour will never get elected whilst that far left crazy faction of the party keeps playing these games.
There is no far-left here. There's only the far-right dragging all politics rightwards.
There will be a point that things are so bad that the only smallest part of society is doing well and that will be the time that people will have no choice. And by then it may also be too late.
You want to wait until then by calling things currently far-left?
Complete an utter nonsense to be using the term far-left in the current context.
You want to fix the climate, poverty and make the country a better place to live? Then simply stop referring to basic redistributive politics as far-left.
How hard can it be to have a moral compass that pushes back against this lot !
(I'm hearing rumours that Starmer has been issued with a fine. I'm not taking it seriously but can you imagine - we'd probably be straight in GE!)
Oh House prices growth looks to have stalled - I always thought this metric could be the thing that puts the boot in for the Tory loving asset-class.
Talk of this recession being short and sharp.
I'm not so sure...
I’ve yet to see a decently constructed argument in support of Starmer.
You wont on here. This is a lovely little bubble of all mouth and trousers pseudo lefties who will never support Starmer because he is not ideologically pure and whithin this group think you have all convinced yourselves that Starmer is the antichrist despite no evidence and in tbe process constructing a completly false narrative . Anyone supporting Starmer gets shouted down
Btw another poll had labour at an 11% lead
Ooooof!
You wont on here. This is a lovely little bubble of all mouth and trousers pseudo lefties who will never support Starmer because he is not ideologically pure
Who started this ideologically pure nonsense?
I heard James O'Brien say it the other day.
It shows a basic misunderstanding of economics and how it doesn't serve us currently, and becomes a block to reversing things.
It's not ideology pure to want to redistribute resources and support strong government investment.
And Starmer is over to the right (that makes him by your own ridiculous notion ideologically pure too by not wanting to change the status-quo)
The 11pt poll yep fine - but he's not in the driving seat of these polls.
Ill give one example:
You have all convinced yourselves he has abandoned the pledge to bring utilities etc into public ownership. He has not. He said he did not believe the form of nationalisation used in the 70s worked. There are many other models of state ownersip and control. Golden share. Co ops. Arms length not for profits. Etc etc
It’s not ideology pure to want to redistribute resources and support strong government investment.
And where has he said he won't? Your post demonstrates exactly what i mean
You have all convinced yourselves he has abandoned the pledge to bring utilities etc into public ownership. He has not. He said he did not believe the form of nationalisation used in the 70s worked. There are many other models of state ownersip and control. Golden share. Co ops. Arms length not for profits. Etc etc
It's not the 70s. We didn't ask for a 70s model.
I think all the suggestions you are offering are pointless models to avoid calling it nationalisation.
If the state doesn't control delivery of essential services then it's doomed to market interference.
And here we are.
The man's an idiot to not understand the modern context and need of nationalisation. He's a avoiding the term nationalisation because he thinks that doesn't serve the right thinking electorate.
There is no need for shareholders in public ownership other than the government.
Reserve your ire for Sarwar and Scottish labour where they ally with the tories rather than talk to the snp. Labour as a result will be lucky to have a single Scottish seat
Rone. Actually those models are in use and work in scotland. From scottish water to scotrail.
If you don't want those models but don't insist on 70s style nationalisation what do you want?
And where has he said he won’t? Your post demonstrates exactly what i mean
Because he's fiscally constrained the Labour party policies. He's putting balancing the books above spending.
That makes is completely counter-intuitive to redistribute.
If you don’t want those models but don’t insist on 70s style nationalisation what do you want
it's not a 70s style. Modern techniques in running things would probably not permit a 70s style.
Did we call is 70s style when some of the banks were bought into public ownership or did we just call it saving the banking sector?
It's a question of need.
So you agree then that starmer has NOT renaged on the pledge for state control then?
What model do you want?
Also Scotrail - now owned by the Scottish Government.
Is that not 'simple' nationalisation?
This is a lovely little bubble of all mouth and trousers pseudo lefties who will never support Starmer
Except those people you attack are the people who voted for him.
Nope. Nor is Scottish water.
But if you accept those two differnt models as state ownership or control then Starmer has not renaged on his promise.
What model of state ownership or contrl do you prefer?
So you agree then that starmer has NOT renaged on the pledge for state control then
I would say Starmer hasn't made a strong pledge other than this clip when he claimed he was happy with nationalisation.
https://twitter.com/timmyvoe/status/1542912963446718464?t=rMd8rPSjuUdHCiwP1I_U_g&s=19
And then confused Ed Milliband when he ruled out big 6 nationalisation.
I don't trust Starmer one iota. I don't think he understands economics, and how the government spends money into existence.
I know this, the broken model we follow and Starmer is blindly following will solve nothing of our current problems.
Nope. Nor is Scottish water.
Explain please. Everyone calling scotrail nationalisation even with the arms-length rhetoric.
I don't know a whole lot about it.
Seems like nationalisation to me.
You have all convinced yourselves he has abandoned the pledge to bring utilities etc into public ownership. He has not.
Why don't you listen to what Starmer himself has said?
Only 4 days ago he confirmed that the Labour Party has no policies. Why are you arguing what the Labour Party's policies are when its leader is claiming that Labour hasn't got any?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19031451/sir-keir-starmer-ditch-all-labour-policies/
Btw the average Labour lead for all 7 polls taken since the by-elections last week is just under 7% which if repeated in a general election would give no party a majority, which is quite remarkable considering the circumstances. And all the more so as Opposition leads almost always diminish during election campaigns.
Scottish water
Its not nationalised but is under government control
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Water
Scotrail
A different model of state ownership and control
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScotRail
Both of these are examples of state ownership and control that are not nationalised in the traditional sense
if repeated in a general election would give no party a majority, which is quite remarkable considering the circumstances
There won’t be a majority Labour government. If that is the only
result you’ll except as positive (despite the fact you didn’t vote Labour at the last election and look to not do so at the next one) then any outcome will be negative by your standards at the next election. FPTP is stacked against our opposition parties, getting the Tories out will require both Labour and LibDem candidates to unseat Tory MPs. The seat count for the Tories doesn’t just depend on the national voting intention for the Labour party, but also on where those Labour votes land geographically. Likewise for the LibDem votes.
Labour are totally self destructing in scotland. Doing deals with tories rather than snp means vote labour get tory will stickas does vote lib dem get tory
Their antics mean 5% off the uk wide vote. Just from their total failure in Scotland to understand the changed political landscape
Both of these are examples of state ownership and control that are not nationalised in the traditional sense
Certainly with Scotrail I don't know how this is not nationalisation?
The government is the owner and funder. There might be partnerships etc.
It's nationalisation.
It's no different to the BoE. The government owns the bank of England.
They appoint a committee that make limited monetary decisions - but the government can control things, and force it perform certain operations. (Q/E) etc.
Tjagain, from your link:
In 2021, it was revealed that untreated sewage was discharged by Scottish Water into Scotland's rivers and lochs more than 12,000 times in a single year, through combined sewage outflows. It emerged that the regulator, SEPA, estimated that there were 645 'unsatisfactory' outflows, and that Scottish Government officials viewed Scotland as being 'way behind' England in dealing with the problem.[9]
Personally give me some of that 70’s nationalisation please. It’s been such a long time and I was only young back then. But, all I remember is that the nationalised companies were starved of investment, which successive governments could have provided.
Their antics mean 5% off the uk wide vote. Just from their total failure in Scotland to understand the changed political landscape
Sorry, I do not follow.
Scotland has 10% of the uk vote which labour used to get more than half of. Now labour get 10 to 15 % so have lost almost a half share of scottish vote which is 5% of the uk wide vote. So the 40% of the uk vote they have now would be 45% if they had not lost the Scottish votes.
Their tribal hatred of the snp and working with tories have destroyed labour in scotland
Vote labour get tory is true in scotland
Their tribal hatred of the snp and working with tories have destroyed labour in scotland
Vote labour get tory is true in scotland
And yet despite all that you are urging people in Scotland to vote Labour because according to your arithmetic the Labour vote in Scotland is very important if the UK is to have a Labour government?
So how come you are allowed to be highly critical of Labour but people in England and Wales aren't?
As this little rant nicely shows:
This is a lovely little bubble of all mouth and trousers pseudo lefties who will never support Starmer because he is not ideologically pure and whithin this group think you have all convinced yourselves that Starmer is the antichrist despite no evidence and in tbe process constructing a completly false narrative . Anyone supporting Starmer gets shouted down
Do I need to move to Scotland before I'm allowed to criticise the Labour Party?
you are urging people in Scotland to vote Labour
I’ve never seen TJ do that, ever.
Point being the issues in Scotland are far more real and derp. Imagine if english labour did deals with the tories to keep the libdems out?
I vote tactically anti tory in fptp elctions and green in proportional ones
But you have just posted the arithmetic to apparently show how important the Labour vote is in Scotland.
Do you want a Labour government in Westminster or not?