You see, this is the kind of narrative that annoys me.
You asked this question:
So what am I?
If you don't like the answer given how about you answer the question yourself?
With a bit of thought most people can manage to answer that question themselves.
It was a rhetorical question.
I'll be voting Lib dem unless something better comes along.
It is completely irrelevant whether they understand the economy. They are being told that inflation is falling and that the UK looks likely to avoid recession
Fair point - other than when they are told something might happen and it then doesn't happen that way and another result occurs.
Like for instance inflation is reducing because the energy costs have stopped increasing (last year) but interest income is still driving inflation in other parts of CPI.
Wouldn't take much for that to become a different outcome.
The inflationary effect of investing in shifting to renewables? Is that what keeps you up at night? Really? Stick with Tories then, they’ll keep the oil and gas burning for you.
Yeah.
There can't possibly be an inflationary effect of that because there's an under supply of energy to even create a market.
We have inflation because there isn't enough spare energy to sell to give you a consumer choice. It's exactly the right thing to do.
It's totally sensible but Labour don't look poised to invest enough money because they're fiscally constrained idiots.
I think you know. Someone who’s content to live indefinitely in a Tory run country
But the outcome is almost the same - swap Tory for Neoliberal.
A Right-wing run country with a few tweaks run by the same monetarist choices, and barely any fiscal difference. That produces a similar economy with nothing big enough to make progress.
You see, this is the kind of narrative that annoys me, ‘I have to vote for labour’ just becasue they are less worse than the conservatives, so I “don’t wan’t to waste my vote’?
This is the kind of self perpetuating nonsence that has kept this country flip flopping within a binary red/blue political system for so long, before I was born, even.
QOTD
You see, this is the kind of narrative that annoys me, ‘I have to vote for labour’ just becasue they are less worse than the conservatives, so I “don’t wan’t to waste my vote’?
No. In a LibDem Tory marginal vote LibDem. Unless you're happy living under the Tories (or have blinded yourself with righteousness?) You may not like it, but this is the system we have for now and it won't change under the Tories.
Yeah vote for the prick that's marginally less of a prick than the incumbent prick.
What a wonderful world we live in.
Of course no party could possibly get elected other than the red or blue one. Never mind Scotland, nothing to see here...
Yeah vote for the prick that’s marginally less of a prick than the incumbent prick.
I'm fairly comfortable with voting Labour on the single premise that anything is massively better than the tories. What I can't abide though is being lectured by labour party members (as happened recently down the pub) calling me 'pro-tory' for questioning whether Starmer is going to change much. If my recent experience is anything to go by the Labour party is becoming quite Stalinist and is massive danger of believing it's own hype. All the signs are pointing towards a '92 scenario.
You may not like it, but this is the system we have for now and it won’t change under the Tories.
It also won't change under Labour.
It also won’t change under Labour.
PR for 2nd chamber? It's more likely to, but I doubt we disagree hugely on this one. It's just that with all the negativity on this thread, a Labour govt will at least try to do better things in difficult circumstances than the current malevolent shambles. By all means moan when this happens, but let's try to make it happen?
a Labour govt will at least try to do better things in difficult circumstances than the current malevolent shambles.
Not if you take Rachel Reeves at her word. In '97 Gordon Brown turned on the funding taps to rescue the NHS and education system and brought in generous benefits to lift people out of poverty. Does anyone seriously believe Reeves is going to do the same?
It's almost pointless arguing between the two in lots of ways.
The division is marginal. They're both Neoliberal.
If people don't really want change then fine, crack on and expect outcomes to be roughly the same with less personality involved. Grown-up Neoliberalism with less Truss/Johnson (less Centrist tantrums over currency vale) but a more battered state.
Well done.
If you're serious about change then I'd keep letting the Tories ruin the country until people demand it. Sorry but it's the only way.
Things have to be bad enough to reject the current options, and new ones have to emerge. (Don't know the exact game plan for that but the current system won't survive.)
One caveat I'm totally curious how the current Labour party would pan out though, even if I won't be voting for them.
My new Labour candidate is John Mann's wife. That lot have earned nothing from me.
Does anyone seriously believe Reeves is going to do the same?
No she's a monetarist she believes the BoE are doing the correct job. No way a left thinking person can support that logic.
It's totally back to front.
She talks a serious amount of rubbish but being ex BoE gives her credentials.
When you believe private growth funds the public sector you're facing totally the wrong direction.
And they're all too focused on GDP as success. The media and all of us are culpable here.
My new Labour candidate is John Mann’s wife.
Yeah I wouldn't be voting for her under any circumstances. Just goes to show again that today's labour party is nothing more than a club for deranged neoliberal careerists. At least my local candidate is a long time local activist who I can feel fairly safe voting for. Having followed him for a while though on social media it's very apparent that he has to be careful what he says in order not to piss off central office.
If you’re serious about change then I’d keep letting the Tories ruin the country until people demand it. Sorry but it’s the only way.
Things have to be bad enough to reject the current options, and new ones have to emerge. (Don’t know the exact game plan for that but the current system won’t survive.)
One caveat I’m totally curious how the current Labour party would pan out though, even if I won’t be voting for them.
You're voting Tory to speed the revolution? It's a crazy plan but it just might work 🙂 [it won't btw. Think Weimar]
There’s no way I’d vote tory, and I’m highly unlikely to vote Labour
So what am I? 😀
It was a rhetorical question.
I’ll be voting Lib dem unless something better comes along.
In what way are the LibDems different to the Tories and Labour?
PR for 2nd chamber? It’s more likely to
The Upper House doesn't get to choose who is the Prime Minister.
PR for the Upper House is pointless without PR for the Commons.
The Upper House doesn’t get to choose who is the Prime Minister.
PR for the Upper House is pointless without PR for the Commons.
I mainly agree, but PR for a 2nd chamber is better than no PR at all.
Sounds like a fob off to me. The House of Lords has no teeth so PR for it whilst keeping first past the post for the House of Commons would be no more than window dressing.
Edit:
better than no PR at all.
Makes it sound as if introducing PR would be a difficult task. It would be a piece of piss to introduce, the only thing it requires is the will to do it.
You’re voting Tory to speed the revolution? It’s a crazy plan but it just might work 🙂 [it won’t btw. Think Weimar]
I know - it's difficult (I'm not voting unless I find a reason to.)
I can't vote for what I don't believe in.
But - I also knew we needed another five years of Tory in 2019 for people to realise how bad they are. People were still too willing to give them a chance back then. Starmer shit the bed with the way he's carried himself.
I don't think any of it totally necessary to beat the Tories.
[it won’t btw. Think Weimar]
The only thing I would add to that (I'm not good on history) is don't denominate your debts in a foreign currency! And we dont these days.
Haven't been here for a long time, still going round in circles I see.
If you’re serious about change then I’d keep letting the Tories ruin the country until people demand it. Sorry but it’s the only way.
Ah, the puritanical left saying the mountain must come to Mohammed, we will not change, but YOU must change to our world views.
PR for the Upper House is pointless without PR for the Commons.
Spot on. PR must happen, the two main parties don't want to share power, and the parties within the two parties don't want it either.
Ah, the puritanical left saying the mountain must come to Mohammed, we will not change, but YOU must change to our world views.
Your unfeasible mountain moving scenario ignores one simple and indisputable truth - in all comparable western liberal democracies the ruling party always eventually loses power.
Voter dissatisfaction guarantees it.
The same can be said with one hundred percent certainty of the UK.
The government will always eventually change, no mountain moving is required.
Ah, the puritanical left saying the mountain must come to Mohammed, we will not change, but YOU must change to our world views
Well I'd sooner be in that position than a bendy flexible Centrist that piggy backs some of the most shockingly inept right-wing macro economic policy we have ever seen.
Enjoy neoliberalism, cost of living, inflation, collapsing banks, markets that don't function, wrecked state services, climate disaster, inequality etc.
On what planet is the system we've got now any sort of success story?
Never push back against the current system, always have the current system.
Well done!
Glad you took time to distill your logic.
Haven’t been here for a long time, still going round in circles I see.
Well check out any of the Tory threads for people going around in circles.
It's mind numbing that this thread gets the stick for repetitive behaviour, when there's at least 4 threads talking up how shit *surprisingly* the Tory party are.
In the meantime I will keep punting out the flaws of current economic policy whilst they keep doing it.
Labour leads by 16% in the Red Wall, down from 28% four weeks ago.
Not really got anything to add to…
They know what they’re doing. There is only one way they can possibly repeat the success of 2019 now… headlines about invasions, influxes and deportations… all the way up to the election.
“Labour will let asylum seekers nest in your hedge and harass your granddaughter on her way to school.”
They know what they’re doing. There is only one way they can possibly repeat the success of 2019 now… headlines about invasions, influxes and deportations… all the way up to the election.
If that is the plan they are going to have to work very hard if it has any chance of success. A 16 point Labour lead in the so-called red wall seats is not what the Tories need to win a general election.
The Tories won all 45 "red wall seats" in 2019 with the exception of Hartlepool which came later. A 16% Labour lead in a general election would mean that the Tories would lose every single red wall seat to Labour.
Although only if we are to indulge in the term red wall.....in reality the term red wall is nonsense because it suggests all 45 seats are the same and the voters in them behave the same - they don't.
This is what Channel 4 News found exactly one week ago:
https://www.channel4.com/news/exclusive-polling-conservatives-could-lose-all-45-red-wall-seats
That was one day before the budget and many more days after the Stop The Boats campaign had been launched, if things have changed significantly in that time it will most likely to be due to voters perception of the state of the economy rather than anything else.
If there is one way for the Tories to avert electoral disaster it is by winning the economic arguments, in the eyes of the electorate.
As one senior Tory MP told the Daily Telegraph:
But the MP said this would be a mistake. “That’s not the way to win an election.”
“There’s some people who are drinking the Kool-Aid about making the next election a culture war.
“Forget it. The next election will be about which party is seen to be more competent to handle the economy and the next five years. It’s not going to be decided on a culture war.”
I am torn between hoping that the Tories will focus on a "culture war" rather than real issues because I know it won't be sufficient for them to win the next general election, and knowing how poisonous bigotry can be.
If that is the plan they are going to have to work very hard if it has any chance of success.
They’ll have plenty of help in the media. Plenty. Hoping they’ll still fail to get over the line come the next election. But it’s a hope not a prediction.
If there is one way for the Tories to avert electoral disaster it is by winning the economic arguments, in the eyes of the electorate.
Sound economic arguments? Trumping “keeping them out” messaging? That’s the pattern of recent UK wide national votes, is it? Hopefully it will be next time, but votes can be swung and won on issues other than economic interests. We can’t deny/ignore that.
The Tories will always lead Labour on "immigration", if that is an issue for voters. The huge lead Labour has been enjoying has nothing to do with voters believing that a Labour government would be tougher on immigration than the Tories.
It is purely down to own thing - voter confidence in the Tories ability to manage the economy has collapsed. And it is quite unprecedented in modern times.
The Channel 4 link I posted above, and which dates to day before the budget, shows that Labour leads the Tories on the economy even more than the Tories lead Labour on immigration.
The Tories will always lead Labour on “immigration”, if that is an issue for voters.
Not disagreeing That’s why they’ll bang on about it right up to the election. Keep it on people’s minds, even though it’s not a real problem. It’s their path back in the polls… but hopefully not enough to win.
Sound economic arguments?
Which sound economic arguments are you talking about? I can't see anyone mentioning sound economic arguments, apart from you.
That’s why they’ll bang on about it right up to the election.
Well if they do they will be wasting their time, they have already "won" immigration, as the Channel 4 link shows, it is the economic argument which they are currently losing to Labour.
For that reason I have no doubt that Rishi Sunak and his advisors will focus on the economy. Labour better be ready - they have a long history of losing the economic arguments in the eyes of the electorate. Invariably due to Labour timidity on the subject.
Sadly boldness and a radical alternative to the Tory narrative on the economy isn't something I am hugely expecting from Keir Starmer.
Well if they do they will be wasting their time, they have already “won” immigration
They have to stress how important it is… there’s an invasion, an influx… we’re under attack… send them to Rwanda. Keep the issue live. No point being trusted on something that people are relaxed about.
https://twitter.com/RachelReevesMP/status/1638202011156881412?t=8uwx13hNx6h8WeKWkaOyuQ&s=19
Vapour.
She would support the BoE.
Move back from monetarism to fiscal control and I will believe you.
Big day for the Fed today. After last week's knock about and government bail / backed loans (they always have money for this stuff don't they) - all eyes are on the Fed for whether there will be a raise of .25 or 0.
It's an interesting one because if the aim of the Fed was to damage or slow the economy out of inflation then in theory there's a chance they do 0 in reaction to last week. Let's see if hawkish or doveish.
Obviously UK tends to follow.
They have to stress how important it is… there’s an invasion, an influx… we’re under attack… send them to Rwanda. Keep the issue live.
Agree. They will come up with a few more piece of BS to really fool them. Remember they totally fooled them into believing not only was Brexit a good idea but their whole vote was about getting Brexit done as though it was the most important thing in their lives. They don't seem to be mentioning it much now do they?
Tories main purpose is fooling the voters into thinking they are the best party for them even though for 90% of society that is not true. They are very good at it and have had a lot of practice which is why I think the election will be a lot closer than the polls would have you think.
Inflation jumps to 10.4% surprise - apparently.
Not a suprise. Increasing interest rates adds to the price level of money.
Idiotic.
If they pivoted on raising interest rates they might do something useful.
Good for Labour even though Reeves would let the BoE carry on exactly the same.
16.8% food price inflation is even less of a surprise to those of us counting the pennies pounds when doing the weekly shop. Not driven by base rate setting.
The latest Survation poll has been released this morning, it is not particularly good news for the Tories.
"Survation’s latest political polling conducted in the days after Jeremy Hunt’s Spring Budget statement shows Labour maintaining a strong lead at +15 points.
Conservatives seem to be slowly losing grip of their strongest policy area - the Economy."
https://www.survation.com/post-budget-polling-shows-conservatives-failing-to-turn-fortunes-around/
Well this is damning.....a report by a senior lawyer tasked by Labour to investigate racism within the party.
The top lawyer echoed his previous comments that the Labour party must take seriously concerns of black and asian members that their complaints are not being treated as seriously as those related to antisemitism. “It’s not enough to say, ‘I’ve been on a course’, and that means I’m untouchable.”
He also criticised Labour’s decision to not introduce an independent directorate that would oversee the party’s disciplinary process.
The lawyer questioned how members would be able to feel “confident” in the transparency or independence of the process.
I think this is probably a fair comment: “If you want to know how your party will treat you in government look at how it treats its members.”
If there’s anyone left who hasn’t seen through Sir Keir’s brazen hypocrisy; most recently on pensions, here’s the final proof.
Sir Keir has told us:
- people who can themselves afford to pay more than a £1 into their own pensions are “rich”
- contributions over this should not be allowed because they are “tax bungs to the rich”
As established above, Sir Keir:
- benefits from an MP pension scheme that gives him £87k of pension benefit whilst avoiding the cap that applies to everyone who has to save for their own pensions. He gets this every year.
- has pension pots that would be valued at £3.5m-£4.5m under the rules that apply to the public / anyone saving for their own pension.
Now it turns out he actually has a specially written Law for his own pension - the effect of which is to avoid the limits set for other public sector workers let alone private sector workers who already receive only a fraction of the benefit yet pay more for the privilege.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/2588/contents/made
Well, that’s a mess!
This is the kind of legislation they should have introduced for senior consultants and other key public sector staff to target keeping them at work… rather than rolling the pension change out to “everyone” for friends in finance to avoid tax.
Well, sounds like there's a plan to clean up that mess... Labour will include everyone in the lifetime limit if they get the chance to change the law... including those with previous exemptions, like Starmer. I have no idea what happens to senior consultants then... something will have to give... all that extra NHS staff Labour plan to train won't be ready for years... and won't be as experienced as these older consultants for decades.
Good law and order speech from Starmer I thought - bar the mandatory " bobbies on the beat" nonsense
tjagain
Full Member
Good law and order speech from Starmer I thought – bar the mandatory ” bobbies on the beat” nonsense
Yeah, I'm not sure how deliverable some of it will be but it's a necessary part of getting Labour ready for the election and hopefully(!) government.
I cannot bloody wait to see the Tories out of government. I know I'm not going to wake up to nirvana any time soon, even after they are out, but by God, it'll be a start.