Forum menu
but I think he’ll at least be competent and honest, which is something that can’t be said of this Tory govt.
Why do think that? There isn't a whole lot of evidence to back up that claim. Starmer hasn't exactly shone as leader of the Opposition so where is the evidence that he would make a competent prime minister? Once in government he would need to do more than wait for the Tories to shoot themselves on the foot.
And as for honesty Starmer made 10 profound pledges when he wanted to win an election which he instantly ditched as soon as the election was over, is that really the mark of an honest man?
There is probably a stronger case to be made that despite his incompetence and dishonesty Starmer would make a better PM than Johnson, although the claim would need to rely on faith more than evidence.
I’m referring to you treating it as the only issue that matters
Dazh has never done that. And he’s not been doing that today. He’s been doing the opposite… saying that other things matter far more.
dazh
…there are millions who are suffering at the hands of the tories, and their needs are much more important than your obsession with a debate that was decided 6 years ago, and my dislike of labour’s right wing policies. If you’re not willing to help yourself, then vote in the interest of the millions who desperately need help now. Your position is indefensible quite frankly.
Posted 7 hours ago
Not voting for Labour because they won’t now push for the UK to be in the Single Market makes no sense. It’s not an option. That door closed once the withdrawal agreement was signed. It’s not something the EU can now offer us on behalf of its remaining member states any more, now that we’re a third country. Labour should have pushed for staying in the Single Market before we left the EU, when it was a possibility, but they didn’t… mostly to satisfy Leave supporters like yourself. And look where that got them… you didn’t even vote for them. Along with millions of others. Because you all thought Brexit was more important than getting the Tories out.
The Independent: Keir Starmer backs snap general election and says government ‘collapsing’.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/johnson-sunak-resigns-election-starmer-b2116510.html
So Starmer wants a snap election, despite the fact that at the moment he only has a "clean slate".
How quickly can he think of some policies to offer the British people, bearing in mind that he doesn't seem to have done much policy-wise in the year and a half that he has been party leader?
Or perhaps he thinks that offering voters just a "clean slate" is sufficient and he'll think of something if he wins the election and moves into Downing Street?
Offering just a clean slate would obviously make it much more difficult for the Daily Mail and the Tories to criticise him, so he might be onto something.
So Starmer wants a snap election, despite the fact that at the moment he only has a “clean slate
Glad he'd got stuff ready to go.
I mean it's not like they haven't had time.
Perhaps he will leave the detail for another time and just focus on the general direction of his policies, eg, better education, stronger economy, more housing, etc
Or maybe just a quick easy to remember slogan such as "security, prosperity, respect”
That's the problem when you have a forensic mind which focuses on fine details - it takes a while to figure things out.
Or maybe just a quick easy to remember slogan such as “security, prosperity, respect”
That’s the problem when you have a forensic mind which focuses on fine details – it takes a while to figure things out.
I’m really not politically savvy to the level of the regular contributors on here, but do detailed policies really cut through with voters? It really seems like most can only cope with 3 word slogans.
When politicians are interviewed on the telly they generally need to provide a bit of detail to their policies. As they also need to when they are involved in face to face debates. It's all part of being a politician. Well usually it is.
no credible government, no credible opposition and a dumpster fire of an economy.
is this the get worse before it gets better part?
Sadly we still have a bit of room to fall further and no election due for 2 years.
I hope Starmer is just holding his policy cards close to his chest so that the Tories can't nick them, then he can play a killer hand when an election does happen.
The reality is neither party know how to deal with the economy.
Wedded to an impossible macro-economic policy that the market can solve problems they are struggling to move on from this logic.
Add to that fact that a series of very tricky black-swan events in sequence, the end is nigh for neoliberalism. They are struggling to get to grips with inflation, cost of living and a battered economy.
They simply don't have the tools to fix things as their beloved markets fall apart.
Well the good news is inflation won't last forever but will likely be replaced by deflation along with recession as we have all been saying.
It's going to take a brave party to step up and rewire the economy - the Tories simply won't do it but may offer up tweaks here and there (tax cuts). The BoE need to stop these ridiculous interest rate rises amd reverse them. I fact get shut of the MPC, sack them - their mandate of controlling inflation by interest rates is useless now.
Labour are in a worse spot as they have to be twice as imaginative and convince the electorate that we are in a difficult situation and therefore we need drastic measures of government investment.
It's not looking good as they simply don't have the minds or political will to fix things.
Biggest mistake? - assuming that coming out of the pandemic was just a return to normal and no government support was needed.
That was categorically stupid and unrealistic.
Ideas: long term get the massive green new deal project going, housing investment and financial support for people. Bring utilities back under government control. Government becomes an employer of last resort for GND.
Not easy to do when there's a supply shortage and all the other issues.
Short term: drop interest rates, government to temporarily subsidise fuel, energy etc - immediately at the very least remove vat/duty. Keep an eye on possible shortages of materials / resources and redirect incentives to alternative mechanisms. Are there under used resources? Incentive working from home via tax breaks for employer and employee. Incentivise people not to travel - redirect economies back to local options. Town centres need massive boosts to generate doorstep opportunities. Not crappy quangos either. Solid job opportunities.
All easier said than done I know.
The RMT are fighting sackings ('security') and pay cuts (not even 'prosperity') and are failing to get support from the PLP. It appears that word salads and porkies have become the prevailing culture in Westminster and voting for a clean slate is a bit like pissing in the dark.
but do detailed policies really cut through with voters?
Detailed, no but at least some idea is generally beneficial although often swamped out by whatever rubbish the media pumps out.
and are failing to get support from the PLP
Why would the Labour party support a union that's not affiliated to them? Especially this Labour party
When politicians are interviewed on the telly they generally need to provide a bit of detail to their policies. As they also need to when they are involved in face to face debates. It’s all part of being a politician. Well usually it is.
Bozza won a landslide doing none of these things.
We get the government we deserve.
but do detailed policies really cut through with voters?
In my experience of canvassing? Not really. Some folks are interested in things like GPs and trains, and the price of energy, or climate change but the vast majority of folks I spoke to on the doorstep when I canvassed for Labour are interested in why their streetlights aren't working, or the potholes, or what will you do about the gangs of yoof, or the vandalism in the town centre.
Mostly stuff that an MP can only partially influence ironically
rone
I really don't want to divert the thread to brexit again but I am genuinely intrigued how you managed to reconcile your views with voting remain.
Much of what you propose, eg large scale nationalisation of monopolies, suspension of VAT, price subsides, simply wouldn't be allowed by the EU. In fact the EU specifically exists to dictate the rules covering those issues.
You talk about "rewiring the economy", how would you have rewired an economy which was fully wired to the EU?
As I say I don't want to start another brexit debate but I have always found it weird how someone can rile against, as you put it "impossible macro-economic policy that the market can solve problems" and nevertheless support EU membership. The idea that the EU can be comprised of 28 free market light-touch economies, and just 1 socialist economy, or even 1 keynesian mixed economy, simply isn't feasible. And surely everyone should realise that?
Why would the Labour party support a union that’s not affiliated to them? Especially this Labour party
The Labour Party shouldn't support anyone who doesn't give them money?
Starmer's a Lawyer, what d'you think?
Bozza won a landslide doing none of these things.
That is simply not true. Johnson has needed to provide details of his policies when he has been interviewed or has had face to face debates.
You might feel that he has been evasive or provided unsatisfactory answers but it still remains a requirement for any leader of a political party.
Much of what you propose, eg large scale nationalisation of monopolies, suspension of VAT, price subsides, simply wouldn’t be allowed by the EU. In fact the EU specifically exists to dictate the rules covering those issues.
No it doesn't, neither did it rule out what Corbyn wanted to do ironically, given his anti-EU stance EU law explicitly protects the right of member states to nationalise industries. Art. 345 TFEU states “The Treaties shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States (MS) governing the system of property ownership.” EU law only gets involved in industry (nationalised or otherwise) when they behave unreasonably given a dominant market position. Nationalised industries working to keep prices lower for consumers can hardly be accused of that.
That is simply not true. Johnson has needed to provide details of his policies when he has been interviewed or has had face to face debates.
You might feel that he has been evasive or provided unsatisfactory answers but it still remains a requirement for any leader of a political party.
Well, he specifically ducked the most interrogative interview he might have done in the run up to the general election (the Andrew Neill one) because they knew that a) he'd get torn to pieces and b) the electorate, generally, don't care. It was a hugely cynical, but admittedly effective, move.
And surely anyone would think that describing him as 'evasive' is a massive understatement.
I absolutely agree that it should be a requirement, but the last election proved that it's not. And that's our (the electorate's) fault.
I am not going to get into an argument on this thread about the EU nick, I was asking a direct question to rone as I am intrigued by the apparent contradiction.
But I chose my words carefully, I specifically referred to nationalisation of "monopolies", removing VAT would not be allowed under EU rules, in fact even lowering it below certain thresholds isn't allowed. Nor are price subsides.
Granted the EU does whenever it suits it ignore its own rules, it constantly does, but that is obviously not any guarantee, especially when it requires the approval of 28 other countries, or the basis for any sort of economic planning.
Good gob, I had the naive impression that the LP saw itself as standing up for working people. Correction: it stands up for its sponsors.
I absolutely agree that it should be a requirement, but the last election proved that it’s not.
That's a strange way of looking at it. It's like claiming that leaders of political parties aren't generally expected to tell the truth because the last guy to win a general election was a liar.
Leaders of political parties generally need to provide details of their policies. The also generally need to tell the truth. Notwithstanding the failures of certain politicians. HTH
Oh sure, I understand the point your making, and I agree that every time the EU or the ECJ get involved it's ultimately all about politics, but that specifically (especially Corbyn's plan to nationalise the "big six") was at the time presented as a wish, but out of reach, because of the EU, and it while it may have ended up at a court case, loads of national policies do and often Govts win them. It was the pretense of being prevented by the EU to do things that they wanted is just so dishonest, wound me up at the time, still does now.
Johnson has needed to provide details of his policies when he has been interviewed or has had face to face debates.
Sure, but only in so much as they were made up at the time, bore no relation to reality, current Tory thinking, or in fact whether they were even deliverable. vis 40 new hospitals, 300,000 new houses a year, a power station based on renewable energy built every year. etc etc.
ernie - I think we're agreeing violently 🙂
wound me up at the time, still does now.
That, plus the fact that the issue was settled 6 years ago is why I have no interest in debating the pros and cons of EU membership.
I would nevertheless still be interested if rone could give an explanation for the apparent contradiction of what he believes the economic solutions should be and support for the EU. It genuinely intrigues me.
I read articles like this and it makes me sad for the state of our opposition. Maybe he should stand as an independent but it looks like he can only achieve what he wants with a reformed Labour party. Maybe hed' be too radical for the populous, but I expect he has the personality to make people look at things differently.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/06/the-country-is-in-a-dangerous-place-people-are-frightened-andy-burnham-on-power-progress-and-finding-his-place
Back to current political events, surely now is the time for Starmer to call a vote of no confidence in the govt? When tory MPs and ministers are declaring they have no confidence in Johnson, they would be forced to vote for the opposite. It's a no-brainer.
Eh no, it will force them to rally behind their leader. Obviously they might be condemning themselves in the eyes of the electorate by doing so, but I can't see any way that they would vote with the opposition against their own government.
Eh no, it will force them to rally behind their leader.
Which would be an extremely good strategic move, exposing the fact that they are no better than the man they are all saying has no integrity. I agree they won't vote with labour, but that's entirely the point.
Aside from the politics of it, there is clearly no confidence in the govt, in parliament or the country, so it's the duty of the opposition to do what is required to rectify that.
I really don’t want to divert the thread to brexit again but I am genuinely intrigued how you managed to reconcile your views with voting remain
Sorry can't talk much today but I know it's a problem. And simply I recognise it's a conflict. Quite simply under Labour they would have made better job of leaving the EU. What else can I do?
What we currently have is the worst of all worlds.
As I say I don’t want to start another brexit debate but I have always found it weird how someone can rile against, as you put it “impossible macro-economic policy that the market can solve problems” and nevertheless support EU membership
Because I was conflicted. I voted remain because remain Tory was going to be better than leave Tory.
And your got me wrong I'm not hugely pro EU. And you could control vat by up to 5% in the EU off the top of my head.
Besides we are out so what's the debate?
Besides we are out so what’s the debate?
Well yes, I totally agree. I just wanted to understand how people deal with the apparent contradiction of their beliefs.
I voted remain because remain Tory was going to be better than leave Tory.
Yeah I can understand the wrestling with your conscious thing. It reminds me of a referendum debate which I attended during the referendum campaign period, in which a speaker from the floor stated that he had decided to vote leave until he saw a bunch leavers speak and realised just how racist they were, from that point on he was committed to voting remain.
For me that makes no sense as presumably he previously had valid reasons for thinking that he should vote leave. For me it's as illogical as saying that you had weighed up the pro and cons of becoming a vegetarian but then someone claimed that Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian so you decided not to.
But I chose my words carefully, I specifically referred to nationalisation of “monopolies”, removing VAT would not be allowed under EU rules, in fact even lowering it below certain thresholds isn’t allowed. Nor are price subsides.
Not an expert but don't they allow state aid / nationalisation under certain circumstances?
I mean doesn't the French government own majority shares in EDF and that has been price capped?
There must be ways and means.
However - economies will absolutely need rebuilding from scratch. Irrespective of EU or not.
Also Ernie the UK didn't need to go to the ECB to spend - when in the EU. There are many differences.
Nationalisation per se isn't the issue, it's the fact that state aid is, apart from specific individual exceptions, not allowed. Also EU directives specifically target monopolies, so whilst it wouldn't, for example, force the Royal Mail to be privatised it would force its monopoly to be opened up to competition, the result is the same. Also member states have little control over vat rates with the EU setting the limits. If the UK were to rejoin the EU now it would be forced to apply vat to food. EU membership seriously constrains what governments are allowed to do with their economies, especially with regards to the sort of proposals that you are suggesting rone.
These are concepts that don't need reconciliation with EU membership. We're not members any more. You can regret that, look at the current situation, and try to find ways to fix things at the same time. Deal with the world the way it is.
EU membership seriously constrains what governments are allowed to do with their economies, especially with regards to the sort of proposals that you are suggesting rone
Yeah, well the market isn't delivering for the people currently. There's no way out other than Government investment.
Something dries up, it needs the source topping up.
Profit gouging an issue too. That doesn't work in our interest.
We're bumping around at the bottom of the curve.
Also EU directives specifically target monopolies, so whilst it wouldn’t, for example, force the Royal Mail to be privatised it would force its monopoly to be opened up to competition
The EU will get involved only if a monopoly abuses it position. The rules specifically allow any form of public ownership and devolve that to the national level anyway. So it's entirely up to govt how they organise it. So in your example, if the govt could demonstrate that public ownership of RM was a "good" the ECJ wouldn't be interested.
This is where Corbyn told some whoppers. There are 100 or so suppliers that you can buy energy from, so his plan to nationalise the "big six" would've been entirely within the scope of EU legislation. That he used the myth of "no state aid" to subtly undermine the remain campaign was pretty poor politicking.
Yeah, well the market isn’t delivering for the people currently. There’s no way out other than Government investment.
Well the UK now has the possibility of showing that TINA is wrong - what do you think the possibility of that happening is??
Not likely I would have thought, given the penchant of the Labour Party to mimic the Tories.
However going down the alternative road always required two stages, firstly to re-establish sovereignty over the economy, and secondly to elect a left-wing progressive government.
I know that many will disagree but I firmly believe that the first part was by far the hardest to achieve. 10 years ago it was inconceivable that the UK would leave the EU, which is obviously why it was agreed to hold a referendum.
But 5 years ago the UK got very close to electing a left-wing government, in fact it sent the Establishment into a state of panic and they had to pull all the stops out to scupper the threat.
Realistically imo it should be accepted that the Labour Party will never again be the party of change. If a real fundamental change is to ever occur in UK politics a new people's party will need to be established.
I know that the current situation makes that impossible to imagine but things can change remarkably quick in politics. It very much depends on how discredited in the eyes of the public the established parties become and the vacuum it leaves. Plus of course whether the far-right or left fill it.
And currently all 3 major parties are doing an excellent job - the Tories are finding new ways to piss off the public, Labour are focusing very hard on criticising the behaviour of Tories whilst not offering anything other than another set of personalities. And the LibDems are led by someone whose name most people can't remember and whose only selling point appears to be taking the UK back to the EU.
but things can change remarkably quick in politics.
you're not thinking of doing a Macron are you?
France just anationalised EDF (their gov already owned 85%)
what are the odds on Johnson being booted out then Durham police dropping a bomshell the day after?
Sorry wrong thread
sent the Establishment into a state of panic and they had to pull all the stops out to scupper the threat
Was that threat a Corbyn led Labour government in 2019? The thing that many of us voted for, but you did not?
a new people’s party will need to be established
Crack on with that then.
And I’m glad you think that Brexit was an achievement. It’s nothing but an expensive pain in the arse whenever and wherever it touches my life, and the lives of my kids. What exactly have you got out of it?
All the promises about the benefits Brexit would bring have proved to have been lies, and the fact that Starmer is going to do nothing about the situation is a major disappointment for many who held out hope that he’d at least be willing to engage with Europe at least on trade and passage of people who want to work abroad and foreign workers who want to come here with a straight forward system. I honestly thought he’d be the solution to so many issues, seems I was wrong. Seems I won’t be voting for Labour next time after all. 😕
Starmer has already proposed a closer agreement on food, agriculture and working abroad. He’s ruled out the UK being back in the Single Market and the return of free movement. I want to see a return to both. It’s not something any UK government can make float though, not in the next parliamentary term, the current government deliberately holed that ship, and the rest of Europe have shrugged and moved on (taking the benefits of rerouted supply chains with them). It’ll take decades of rebuilding the relationship.