hate the Tories until your blood explodes and spend the last seven years castigating every possible Tory quality … or now it’s a good thing that Starmer has inherited some of those same *finer* Tory qualities
Yeah its strange how the people who express the most intense hatred towards the Tories on here are often also the same people who want the Labour Party to be a bit more like the Tories.
This thread, for quite some time, has been the internet equivalent of those blokes you see in the park drinking white lightning and shouting at buses 😂
Polly Toybee appears to think he’s a radical. 😂
PMSL - she's delusional.
I will read that and try and keep a straight face.
I will read that and try and keep a straight face.
Don't bother, here it is below. Radical stuff I'm sure you'll agree. Surestart centres, colleges, museums and playing fields! Vive la revolution!
"Momentum’s remnants grumble that he offers no more than “New Labour re-runs”, but they should hope he can cut child and pensioner poverty by a million people; revive benefits, Sure Start programmes for tots and further education colleges; and renew local museums and grassroots sport to outdo New Labour’s 13 abundant years from 1997 to 2010. It will be harder this time."
binners Full Member
This thread, for quite some time, has....blah, blah, blah,
I always knew that despite your self-imposed silence you kept a close eye on this thread binners, which is why I sometimes post something especially for you 😉
Any thoughts on my earlier comment which you have undoubtedly read?
I'm sure that you didn't miss it but here it is again anyway:
So the apparent previous STW consensus that British voters easily buy into right-wing racist bollocks has now changed – when did that happen?
Now it turns out that the likes of Braverman and the National Conservatism Conference will actually put people off voting Tory.
I actually agree but when I challenged the claim that voters were motivated by selfish greed and unbridled racism I was told by a Guardian-reading expert on the matter that I needed to pay a visit to the Rose and Crown in Ramsbottom to find out what real voters think.
This thread, for quite some time, has been the internet equivalent of those blokes you see in the park drinking white lightning and shouting at buses 😂
Ah I always wondered where you got your political analysis from.
Don’t bother, here it is below. Radical stuff I’m sure you’ll agree. Surestart centres, colleges, museums and playing fields! Vive la revolution
Wow, party like it's 1997.
Wasn't sure where best to post this but if its been done apologies.
https://twitter.com/TheNewsAgents/status/1658195544496562177?t=xoSnovVAyrGT6ufZ9tK6Pw&s=19
"Camden comrades, North London Leninists, and tofu-eating Trotskyists"?
Binners wrote the script!!
Radical stuff I’m sure you’ll agree. Surestart centres, colleges, museums and playing fields! Vive la revolution!
You can shit on boring Surestart centres all you like, and pine for a government that won't stop until it liberates Al Quds, but one of these paths leads to a material improvement in the quality of real people's lives and the other leads to smug blog pieces on Squawkbox about how you ultimately won the argument.
You can shit on boring Surestart centres all you like, and pine for a government that won’t stop until it liberates Al Quds, but one of these paths leads to a material improvement in the quality of real people’s lives and the other leads to smug blog pieces on Squawkbox about how you ultimately won the argument.
Toynbee did everything she could in her contorting little column to ensure we didn't get radical.
She's not a serious commentator.
Starmer is not offering the path you talk about anyway. Why are so Centrists so comfortable with the move rightwards which won't deliver meaningful improvement?
Baffling.
You can shit on boring Surestart centres all you like
No one is shitting on surestart centres, they're a great thing of value. However, for a government which spends over a trillion pounds annually, has the ability to spend more at will, and the luxury of being able to set law and policy to get the best value from that spending, does it not occur to you that it should be doing an awful lot more than creating surestart centres and running museums? FFS think bigger!
So the apparent previous STW consensus that British voters easily buy into right-wing racist bollocks has now changed – when did that happen?
Can't talk about the consensus but it hasn't change for me, I still believe that. I know you love to talk about Brexit but that was a lot of people who bought into racist bollocks was it not. Strong evidence right there.
How many of those same people will be happy with "stopping the boats". A fair majority I would guess.
I know you love to talk about Brexit
Pretty sure Ernie avoids talking about brexit at all costs. 🤷♂️
but that was a lot of people who bought into racist bollocks was it not
No, it wasn't, as hundreds of posts by myself and others on both brexit threads pointed out. Maybe go back and have a read rather than repeating cliched stereotypes?
How many of those same people will be happy with “stopping the boats”.
Did you even read Ernie's post? He was pointing out that the success of Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens in the local elections and the continuing unpopularity of the tories in the polls shows that voters don't really care about stopping the boats and instead prioritise other issues like the cost of living, the NHS, the environment and other stuff like energy policy, tuition fees and schools funding. There is very little evidence that stopping the boats is a high priority for the general population.
You can shit on boring Surestart centres all you like
The problem with them and the other items is they were rapidly rolled back.
So we had them for a period but then we had the normalisation of most of the tory policies.
With this as the new baseline surestart etc vanished into thin air whilst they doubled down on policies that even Thatcher thought were a bit too extreme.
Being radical is about getting your policies to stick not so they can be binned.
Given Starmers current line he seems determined to repeat the same mistake.
Being radical is about getting your policies to stick not so they can be binned.
The minimum wage being a good example.
Getting any policy to stick if you lose yet another general election is a tough ask though.
Did you even read Ernie’s post? He was pointing out that the success of Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens in the local elections and the continuing unpopularity of the tories in the polls shows that voters don’t really care about stopping the boats and instead prioritise other issues like the cost of living, the NHS, the environment and other stuff like energy policy, tuition fees and schools funding
Yep, I just disagree with his thoughts on it. And that is all they are, thoughts - just the same as mine. He is no more correct on anything that I am, we are both just basically making stuff up although he clearly spends A LOT more time on it.
Just to entertain it though and let's pretend Ernie is correct - which policies did the Lib Dems present to the people who want to prioritise cost of living, the NHS etc,. that attracted them?
Or are people just fed up with tory shit after 12 years, which is much more likely the case (just my thoughts)
The minimum wage being a good example.
True although that was mostly down to the fact all the economists were proved to be wrong. If it hadnt been obviously beneficial it would have been binned off like everything else (most likely by the effective method of lack of enforcement and not increasing it).
Getting any policy to stick if you lose yet another general election is a tough ask though.
Not necessarily. It depends on whether the party in charge has to respond to you or not. The classic case being UKIP although that was largely dependent on sympathetic wing of the other parties.
Which is of course the other problem with the being slightly less tory than the tories. You end up with a bunch of people not feeling represented and going looking for someone else to vote for.
Minimum wage was set so low in real terms as to be basically insignificant.
I just think the general issue with radical policies (and most of them aren't that radical if you want things to be better) - is that politicians just don't have the backbone to take them to the establishment and fight.
When you have a BoE that can effectively operate at odds to government policy QE/QT versus the direction of interest rates being a good example - then you're simply going to back down 9/10 as things are too entrenched in a market system.
Is it good for the market - "no", then fine homeless people don't factor in to that question.
Starmer is simply never going anywhere close because of this.
There is nothing particularly radical and progressive about a legal minimum wage, right-wing governments are often happy to have a legal minimum wage.
Even the United States which isn't always considered a highly progressive country with regards to social provisions has a federal minimum wage.
A legal minimum wage has a fair few advantages for right-wing governments including reducing government spending on in-work benefits and also reducing the likelihood of workers joining trade unions.
A legal minimum wage isn't necessary in a society where the balance of power is not heavily in favour of private employers.
There is nothing particularly radical and progressive about a legal minimum wage
There isn't now. There was in the UK in 1997. That it's now embedded and entirely accepted by near complete consensus here now was the point of the example of "getting your policies to stick".
I say "near", because increasingly "employers" can avoid it, and Conservative governments have quietly let that happen both legally and illegally on a larger and larger scale.
Starmer going full swivel-eyed trickle down economics. Won't be long before he's got Liz Truss on his team of advisors. It beggars belief. 🙄
"I know what a lot of people in Westminster say about growth. They say it’s an abstract concept, doesn’t resonate, doesn’t connect with peoples’ lives, I don’t accept that.
Growth is higher wages. Growth is stronger communities. Growth is thriving businesses. It’s more vibrant high street, less poverty, more opportunity, warmer homes, healthier food, better jobs.
It’s public services that are well funded. It’s holidays, meals out, more cash in your pocket - an end to the suffocating cost of living crisis, our ticket to win the race for the future and the biggest single thing we need to lift our sights, raise our ambitions, and get our hope, our confidence and our future back."
Starmer on Radio4 PM now. Getting the new (cancelled) rail infrastructure in the North back on the agenda.
There is nothing particularly radical and progressive about a legal minimum wage
There isn’t now. There was in the UK in 1997.
The UK introduced a legal minimum wage 59 years after the United States.
That's not the UK. Is it. So isn't counter to my point at it. Is it.
Interesting fact, IIRC, it was comparative studies of USA state minimum wages that Labour used to justify the economics of their minimum wage policy when the likes of Minford were claiming it would create unemployment.
Anyway, I'm wasting my time here. If it wasn't for you we might be able to have a discussion here, rather than whatever is you want to.
we might be able to have a discussion here
It is obvious that you don't really want a discussion. Just a noncritical appraisal of Sir Keir Starmer.
make it so
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/18/labour-scottish-style-right-to-roam-law-england
There won't be any green spaces once that stupid **** has built on it.
Minimum wage was set so low as to not upset big businesses - which at the time they thought their world was going to cave in because of it. Which was bullshit.
Typical tinkering at the edges.
Starmer going full swivel-eyed trickle down economics. Won’t be long before he’s got Liz Truss on his team of advisors. It beggars belief. 🙄
“I know what a lot of people in Westminster say about growth. They say it’s an abstract concept, doesn’t resonate, doesn’t connect with peoples’ lives, I don’t accept that
Current status on that is the UK is stalling and I see nothing from anyone that will reverse that.
Building an economy out of House price inflation and then lifting interest rates is like giving you a fast car to drive off a cliff.
There won’t be any green spaces once that stupid **** has built on it.
You mean this?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-65619675
He's backing the builders not the blockers.
Edit: Ironically I believe that it was a Labour government which first introduced nationwide legislation in 1947 to stop developments on the greenbelt. Mind you back then the Labour Party weren't real conservatives.
It's a sad day when a Tory is less of a **** than the Labour leader.
Yep, screw the young amd minimum waged. Let them enrich the landlords for the whole of their lives.
Bill, stop foreign investment buyers and the prices will come down. There is no reason that any new houses can't be sold at cost. They won't be because building is all about profit for builders.
The affordable housing they want to build on our green belt costs £500k.
True although that was mostly down to the fact all the economists were proved to be wrong.
This is total rubbish. It is simply not the case that "all the economists" opposed the minimum wage.
Minimum wage was set so low as to not upset big businesses
This is rubbish too. I was a kid making minimum wage at the time, and it radically increased the hourly rate I was paid. The fact that the economy as a whole was growing and the government had a mandate and majority meant that corporate opposition was overcome.
I was a kid making minimum wage at the time, and it radically increased the hourly rate I was paid.
Yeah great for a kid living at home but not enough for an independent adult. Which presumably is why the Tories had to introduce the National Living Wage 17 years later and leave the National Living Wage for kids.
Obviously that ^^ should read "National Minimum Wage for kids"
This is rubbish too. I was a kid making minimum wage at the time, and it radically increased the hourly rate I was paid. The fact that the economy as a whole was growing and the government had a mandate and majority meant that corporate opposition was overcome
Just because it 'radically' increased your wage doesn't make it not low. It simply means you were being paid too low before that.
The minimum wage was accepted because it was insignificant. It's an absolute matter of economics.
For a start they didn't even get to their own level they set. It fell short.
The full rate was £3.60 an hour in 1999 Which would have meant 7488 per year. Average house price was 75,000. On what planet do you think those wages are radical?
Average (medion) earnings though were about 18,800. So the minimum wage was not doing a thing really, and certainly not significant enough to live on.
UK is and was low wage country for millions despite minimum wage.
https://twitter.com/StevenGWalker74/status/1659433996013518850?t=wiBZrkkxBFws78rlOgku0g&s=19
Doh. This is a ridiculous approach, it will just move more people to work in the private sector from exactly the same pool of labour and drive up health inequality.
What is wrong with these bone-headed Labour morons? Are we all brainwashed into the failure of private market services which must be solved by even more market involvement?
Government can pay or you can pay. It's a gaping hole waiting to be solved by the power of the state. An easy sell for the Labour Party.
(And if this was a short term fix - fine but they will chuck loads of money at the private sector and hail it a success. )
You need to look at the cost per operation (private vs NHS). I see all the costs for Private as I see the bills (but fortunately don't have to pay them).
Is the same operation on NHS the same price as Private or is it more or less? Do they even know, have they actually costed it at that level (i.e room time, anaesthetist time, surgeon time, bed and after care time in hospital etc,.)
You need to look at the cost per operation (private vs NHS). I see all the costs for Private as I see the bills (but fortunately don’t have to pay them).
Is the same operation on NHS the same price as Private or is it more or less? Do they even know, have they actually costed it at that level (i.e room time, anaesthetist time, surgeon time, bed and after care time in hospital etc,.)
My point would be the private sector is taking resources and labour that could be available to the NHS in the first place.
And the government can always pay.
So why bother?
Get rid of it and it becomes public control - that redeploys resources back to where they're needed. Long term.
Is the same operation on NHS the same price as Private or is it more or less? Do they even know, have they actually costed it at that level (i.e room time, anaesthetist time, surgeon time, bed and after care time in hospital etc,.)
The apparent costs of ops in the private sector do not include all the underpinnings: costs of training the docs and nurses, costs of having emergency backup from the NHS for when procedures get complex as can happen etc.
Besides this, the last time private sector capacity was used to bring down waiting times, at a time of literal doubling of health budgets (evil new labour) the actual contribution to bringing down waiting was pretty marginal. Not that terrible at the time as more money was going into the NHS than it could use efficiently. But times have changed. (I like Streeting but this is a bad policy. And does make you wonder if he actually believes what - openly declared, obv - venture capital donors to his office tell him.)
In his speech, the opposition leader is set to tell the public that it is “not serious” to suggest that the NHS’s current issues can be fixed solely with more money.
Nowhere in the article can I see what non-budgetary "fundamentals" he intends to fix other than this:
He said the UK had fallen from fourth to 10th in the international ranks for the number of cutting-edge experiments taking place, a drop that Labour calculates amounts to £450m in lost revenue.
Is that it - more cutting-edge experiments are needed? It can't surely be down to just simply more clinical trials. How about he explains these fundamentals that need fixing in more detail?
And I don't get this
"he will outline his vision for modernising the NHS"
How is the NHS an old-fashioned institute which needs modernising? Every few years, for the last 40 years, the NHS undergoes huge massive seismic structural changes. Whatever its current structures they are likely to reflect what has been implemented in very recent years.
https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1660538956050583552?s=20
Bullshit - back to front.
The economy can't grow without massive spending. The money has to come from somewhere in the first place.
No need for this total lie.