Forum menu
Replacing Starmer won’t change the Labour Party. He isn’t the problem.
No, the problem is the factions within it all determined to undermine each other at any cost. Up here they directed their energy towards the SNP by teaming up with the Tories FFS.
It's shameful TBH, the best thing to happen to Labour would be a shock win, implement PR and let the party explode into its natural factions. That would be the greatest gift they could give us and probably the easiest way to keep the country together. Lets face it, Labour haven't been a party for the workers since forever and are falling apart at the seams. The system, however, is pulling this zombie party along whilst pretending it's an opposition and they can't join forces with another party because, well, THEY JUST CAN'T!
Now would be a great time for a left-wing party
We have more than a few but without that brand awareness (yes, I did that deliberately even though it made my skin crawl typing it) they're just also-rans. The system doesn't allow small parties to become bigger, look at the Greens FFS.
the best thing to happen to Labour would be a shock win, implement PR and let the party explode into its natural factions.
I think the only reason labour aren't fully behind PR, is that a fair percentage of the parties leadership realise that is what will happen, and their fiefdoms will shrink.
We have to deal with the voting system in front of us, if we want any change in the next decade. I'm fully behind PR, as are "some" Labour politicians, but not enough. Members are behind it... Unions not... for the reasons you suggest I suspect.
As for other parties... in a parliamentary seat where the choice is between Labour and, say, one of the Green parties... I'd choose Green. That's a rare choice in the UK though. There are many seats where, to keep the Conservatives out, you need to vote Labour or LibDem, even if neither are close enough to your own politics for the vote to be the one you'd cast if we had PR. The voting system and regional demographics and voting patterns can't simply be ignored or wished away if we want an end to this string of Tory PMs taking us where they are.
One proposed a mile away from my house is getting loads of objections and the usual NIMBY protest group has sprung up.
To be fair though it's only the NIMBYs that make the noise. There could be a huge majority in favour and they'd probably not be protesting.
But if 2022 isn’t the year you can persuade people that maximising our renewable energy production, and weening us off gas, is the way forward… it’ll never happen.
Seems Kwasi is onto it already!... 🙂
I don't understand this, how is down to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to "ease rules" for onshore wind farms?
Surely it is a matter for the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, or maybe the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy?
All-powerful cabinets ministers encroaching on issues which are the responsibility of others and duplicate ministries/briefs reminds me of the chaos caused by the Nazis administration of the Third Reich!
Perhaps that's Liz Truss's plan - to have all potential adversaries and threat to her authority too busy fighting each other and trying to curry favour with her to mount a coup?
All-powerful cabinets ministers encroaching on issues which are the responsibility of others and duplicate ministries/briefs reminds me of the chaos caused by the Nazis administration of the Third Reich!
A possibly deliberate Godwin and signal it's time to end the thread.
Seems Kwasi is onto it already!…
Let’s hope it happens! 🤞🏼
Anything being leaked about solar?
And for what 'People' say - ready the Daily Mail comments!... 🤦♂️
We should be using our own natural resources to supply our energy and fuel this green agenda is costing people far too much
🤣
I'm a bit surprised that the Al Jazz Era's three part on the Labour Files hasn't had a mention. A bit slow moving, no car chase, restaurant or imtimate scenes but chilling stuff nevertheless.
It has been mentioned. Political parties have a lot of horrid manipulations and lies going on in them, don’t they.
Oh right, that's ok then.
No, the machinations talked about in that are not okay. But the documentary series has been mentioned. Can’t blame you for not reading the thread though.
Can’t blame you for not reading the thread though.
Especially as it hasn't been discussed, just mentioned. And not by you.
It's one of those things that some people would rather sweep under the carpet. And dismiss it as typical of any political party.
Although you don't give any example of other parties where the party establishment has worked so extensively to covertly attack and undermine their own leader.
Whatever.
Anyway, glad to see that Labour is spreading their “response” to the “mini-budget” across the front bench, rather than making it all about Starmer. It’s the best approach IMHO, as Starmer still can’t connect with voters, and something other than a presidential style approach is going to be essential building towards the next election.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-leader-keir-starmer-promises-28074627
At last! Something to actually get behind. More of this and I’ll have to eat my words.
Good morning. You beat me to it…
https://twitter.com/greenpeaceuk/status/1573923714139299842?s=21
Nothing new, but hopefully the timing of renouncing the longer term energy plan (going into this tough winter paired with the reshuffled government’s empty short termism) will mean people will be listening. People can see that energy is not a fringe issue, and accelerating the addressing of climate change is good economic policy for all of us. Patching over the problems this winter is essential, but the big picture is what we do in the medium and long term, and that is also government led.
Yes, nothing new, but time to take the country of pause, and get a government that will take us forward.
My dreadful terrible opportunistic local MP really annoyed me yesterday. Having a go at A.R over a tax cut that they *plan* to make by 2024 that Labour is *definitely* going to reverse.
WTF.
https://twitter.com/MTBrone/status/1573704356788051975?t=orZ689KFDJ2D3bFgvlBF9g&s=19
Yes, nothing new, but time to take the country of pause, and get a government that will take us forward
I need to be not convinced that every time we get close to actual change the establishment of both parties pushes back from it.
I've got less than zero faith in the Labour party to do anything remotely impressive.
Basically the strategy as always is wait for the Tories to implode. Sigh.
Basically the strategy as always is wait for the Tories to implode.
The strategy has been two fold… lead by announcing short term policies required, for the government to then follow and use (but twist to divert money to the rich and companies they are connected with)… and prepare and refine longer term policies ready for the next manifesto. The time to move the Tories aside is at an election. The timing of policy announcements is being very carefully planned. Those that want everything announced last year are understandably frustrated, but need to be more realistic. They would already have had to adjust any fully fleshed out policies many times to respond to world events and government changes. Being trapped with 2019/2020/2021 rigid policy commitments being repeated by Tories and their press come an election would be a mistake. The publishing of the general election manifestos will show stark differences between what the Conservatives and Labour are proposing at election time.
Just to be clear… this…
renouncing the longer term energy plan
Should have said “re-announcing”… auto correct completely changed the meaning for me. Dammit.
Your information is based on speculation and opinion yet you talk as if it's fact.
There's no way you can be sure of what you are talking up.
There is no way with 'costed' budgets they can deliver meaningful change.
You know it simply doesn't work like that.
You can either be the party of big change or you can have a balanced spending plan. If they can reconcile that I would be all ears.
Your information is based on speculation and opinion yet you talk as if it’s fact.
I’m just repeating what front bench politicians (and back bench MPs and others outside parliament involved in policy review) keep telling us. If you don’t trust any of them, then fair enough.
There is no way with ‘costed’ budgets they can deliver meaningful change.
There absolutely will be detailed “costings” for the next Labour Manifesto (just like the last two). If you think Labour will fight the election with a “don’t worry your little heads about costs, it doesn’t matter” approach, you’re mistaken.
As for the comment about “balancing”, I agree with that, but that doesn’t preclude explaining to voters what things are expected to cost, and the likely way they will be paid for.
There absolutely will be detailed “costings” for the next Labour Manifesto (just like the last two). If you think Labour will fight the election with a “don’t worry your little heads about costs, it doesn’t matter” approach, you’re mistaken
All your words not mine.
There is no such thing as 'costed' when it comes to deficit spending. You can only enact change or growth by putting more in to the public purse than you take out.
It is the reason why Labour were unable to offer as big a plan for energy as then the Tories.
That approach is economically doomed from the start.
I don't mean this absolutely personally but why are Labour supporters always willing to accept such low level goals?
The Labour plan was for a shorter period, which is why it wasn’t as “big”. You’re just parroting the attack lines used against Labour by the Tories. “Pick a different time period and compare” is the oldest trick in the book. And that’s what happens when the opposition announce their polices first, they are quickly reframed by the government, which is one of the reasons you don’t firm up all policy years before an election.
At last! Something to actually get behind.
Yup, but it's hardly the first time that Starmer has come up with excellent proposals, he is perfectly capable of doing so. That's how he became party leader.
At the end of that article which you link it mentions that a new Opinium poll in today's Observer gives Labour a 5% lead which considering the circumstances isn't huge (although it was mostly taken before the mini budget) so Labour really need policies to inspire voters.
What is more worrying is another article in the Guardian:
However, the Labour leader said in an interview with the Observer there would be no deal – before or after the election – that would see him back a change. Asked if Labour’s manifesto would include pledges on electoral reform, he said: “No, it’s not a priority for me.”
Which begs the question - what is the actual point of the Labour Party annual Conference?
It would appear that the Labour Party is run as a one-man personal fiefdom and the opinions of nearly half a million members are of no importance. The annual conference seems to be no more than an exercise in which the party leader tells hundreds of thousands of members what they need to support and fight for.
In a democratic organisation you would expect the membership to have a significant influence in what went into the party manifesto.
And it's not Starmer who is to blame for this, he inherited this situation. There was a time when the Labour Conference could insist on policies becoming manifesto commitments. Indeed Conservative Party Conferences were much ridiculed for being pointless show managed events without any democratic debate. The person who changed it all was that champion of control- freakery Tony Blair.
Although others since him, including Jeremy Corbyn, did nothing to change this quite frankly deplorable situation.
What else grates me is the Tories wear tax cuts to the rich on their chest!
But Labour won't do the same for spending into the economy to support the poor. The Tories will absolutely stand behind their failed ideology of serving their archetypes.
Labour won't go anywhere near theirs!
Won’t they…?
The Labour plan was for a shorter period, which is why it wasn’t as “big”. You’re just parroting the attack lines used against Labour by the Tories. “Pick a different time period and compare” is the oldest trick in the book
Why didn't Labour aim bigger? What is there to lose?
Time and time again excuses for Labour inadequacy.
I'm not parotting anything. I never thought Labour's plan was extensive enough. Even for a short term solution.
Labour put too much emphasis on fully costed rather than helping the poor.
You see the bullshit here yet?
Won’t they…?
Nope because the current Labour party doesn't really have one. They are terrified to be seen dolling money out to the underserving.
Scared of their own shadow.
Yet Truss is happy with looking after their lot.
Why is that? Why are Labour so obsessed with helping the *working* family as opposed to simply the left-behinds?
At the end of that article which you link it mentions that a new Opinium poll in today’s Observer gives Labour a 5% lead which considering the circumstances isn’t huge (although it was mostly taken before the mini budget) so Labour really need policies to inspire voters
Really that's staggeringly bad.
Some of us really did get shot down for pointing out Truss was not useless in the context of support.
Although even I can't see the mini-budget surviving.
but it’s hardly the first time that Starmer has come up with excellent proposals
True, but we cynics have been begging for policies and this is quite a policy. It also defines a clear objective and mission which is light years away from the tories backwards looking surrender to the fossil fuel corporations and billionaire elite. This really gives people something to vote for.
Why is that? Why are Labour so obsessed with helping the *working* family as opposed to simply the left-behinds?
Realistically, I'd guess thats the target deomgraphic for getting their vote so they can actually get into power and do something. Like the Tories appealing to pensioners.
Realistically, I’d guess thats the target deomgraphic for getting their vote so they can actually get into power and do something. Like the Tories appealing to pensioners.
So change your politics to suit Tory voters rather than substantiate your own much better ideas?
I mean - Tory policies have delivered the outcomes we have today so yeah why not run with them.
It's the most terrible idea in politics. Because once you're in power you will be impotent to do anything because you're too scared to implement your own ideology/pragmatism - for being thrown out at the next election.
Tory forever then?
People in work with families to support shouldn’t be dismissed as natural Tory voters, they absolutely should be seen as open to persuading to vote otherwise at the next election.
but it’s hardly the first time that Starmer has come up with excellent proposals
Well how much of an excellent idea it is depends on the detail. The environmental improvement is the only realistically benefit, which of course is very important and gets my support.
But the promise of cheaper bills and well paid jobs are just pipedreams if the current trend of public financing of projects for corporate ownership continues. Such large scale transformative projects need to be kept in public ownership if the benefits are to be realised for the whole country, and not just the shareholders.
Labour would keep 19% basic rate but reinstate 45% top rate of income tax, says Keir Starmer – UK politics live
So Starmer wants to follow two historical Tory tax decisions?
(There was a 50% tax rate in 2010 before the Tories lowered it to 45%.)
Does he have any better ideas of his own? Why can't it be a higher tax rate than 45% I mean it's not as if we couldn't do with it.
Or a lower than 19% tax rate for standard rate. Why numbers the Tories have chosen?
Both numbers created by the Tories.
Pre bankers budget but the truss bounce appears to have been rather flat
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1574028507017089028?t=et2_-sKhb6avCHruGg3TTQ&s=19
So Starmer wants to follow two historical Tory tax decisions?
Anything Labour say you will paint as “Tory”. Even when they are going against the Tory government’s give away to the rich. Give it up. How bloody convoluted is this attempt?!? It isn’t funny. It’s sinister. Promising to reverse the removal of the 45% tax band will mean more progressive taxation under Labour than under this Tory government. And that won’t be the end of Labour’s tax changes if they form the next government, it is just a straight answer to the question “will you reverse the tax changes announced in the mini-budget” in a clear way that every voter can understand.
Edit. I see its been mentioned but ignored as it doesn't suit the narratuve
Labour on course for majority of 56, MRP poll suggests
Labour is currently on course to win a majority of 56 in the next election, new polling suggests.
Still tighter than that suggests. Geographic spread of votes and all that. Lots of work for Labour to do! It’s looking more promising at this point than any of us would have predicted if asked in 2019 though, isn’t it?
Read the article. Thats taking into accout the geographical spread and boundary changes.
Read it earlier. Lots of seats mentioned could slip back to being predicted Tory wins with very little vote swing back to them. Labour need to be more than 10 points up come the election. Our voting system and current age, social and geographic distribution is now heavily helpful for the Tories. Obviously, I want the next PM (well next one to win a general election) to be Labour. Lots still to do. Truss helps though (yes I do still think that).