You can tell a lot about Starmer, I think, by the policies and promises that he actually stands by vs the ones he uturns on and especially the ones he uturns on more than once. When the dust settles, the only ones that actually count for anything look to be the ones about making everyone poorer.
You can tell a lot about Starmer, I think, by the policies and promises that he actually stands by vs the ones he uturns on and especially the ones he uturns on more than once
The flip side of that for me is I actually haven't figured out what he does deep down genuinely stand-for.
4D chess has really messed with my capacity to remember anything he said.
I rely on Kelvin and Ernie for the detail.
Spending on infrastructure and training far beyond anything our current lost at sea government will attempt. Main focus is green energy transition and NHS staff… mostly because they are priorities we all share across the UK (don’t we?). None of that is at odds with the “non-negotiable” rules on BAU spending. Negotiating with public sector unions on pay not ruled out (no point implying that it is when it isn’t). Spending on wages can go up if other things change (tax rules being an obvious target there). All this possible without declaring that you are wedded to MMT as a theory… and why would you? The public need reassurance… I know some of you would rather they were reeducated… but there’s this pesky thing called an election that needs winning. Government spending will be used to encourage growth. Taxation and regulation will be used to stop that money going into the wrong hands and to see off more high inflation and currency devaluation. This has all been stated. No need to mention MMT… people simply will not get it. Especially if they are being “taught” it by Labour politicians they already fear will bankrupt the UK (god knows why, it’s the Tories that have been making us all poorer).
I actually haven’t figured out what he does genuinely stand-for.
IMO he just wants to be Prime Minister.
I am sure he genuinely believes that if he purges the Labour Party of left-wing influence and aligns it as closely to the Tory Party as possible he will achieve his goal.
There is no reason at all to assume that he is wrong in his assessment, it certainly looks as if he is on track to be the next Prime Minister.
I wouldn't look beyond personal ambition with regards to what motivates Keir Starmer.
Lawyer ➡️ DDP ➡️ PM
3 years ago Starmer made "the moral case for socialism", today he makes the case for fiscal prudence and balanced budgets..... a different audience and a different election.
Labour will be spending more. Hopefully on the right things, everything announced so far suggests to me that is the case. That they use language designed to reassure people that they will stay in control of spending and the economy is because of people painting Socialism as not being about those things… they think Socialism means a country going broke… nonsense but there you are. That impression needs to be changed to get people to vote Labour into government. The Tories have helped an awful lot there… but even now people still say “it would be worse under Labour”, many really think that Tories are a safer bet when it comes to the economy and state finances than Labour, despite all the evidence. The battle to reassure the public is a massive one, and Labour aren’t there yet. More of this stuff to come, like it or not.
Labour will be spending more.
You know this because Keir Starmer said so? I've got news for you.
Labour have made it very clear that they will only go back on their word if they find that the economy is in a mess.
"economic stability, financial stability, always has to come first".
If they don't stick to their spending commitments it won't be their fault it will be the Tories's fault:
And pressed on why she made the pledge in the first place, the shadow chancellor said: "The truth is I didn't foresee what the Conservatives would do to our economy - maybe that was foolish of me."
So let's all pray that when the Tories leave office they leave behind a nice healthy economy.
Hopefully they will as Labour's plans are apparently based on that supposition.
labour have made it clear they will NOT be spending significantly more. Indeed they are promising more austerity
I think Kelvin was basing his belief on faith rather than what Labour has been publicly saying.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-64166870
When I asked him if his promise meant he would match Conservative spending limits, he didn't answer either way.
It is reasonable to assume that a Starmer government might well significantly increase spending after winning an election.
After all we know that Starmer said whatever he felt was necessary to say to win the Labour leadership election, despite clearly having no intention of sticking to his pledges.
It is just anyone's guess what Starmer would do as PM. It would be very foolish to make any claim based on what he is currently saying.
I think Kelvin was basing his belief on faith rather than what Labour has been publicly saying.
there is a lot of that going on especially over the B word I must not mention 🙂
It is reasonable to assume that a Starmer government might well significantly increase spending after winning an election.
There won't be a choice of they don't want to disappear into an economic nightmare.
Or maybe they do.
There won’t be a choice of they don’t want to disappear into an economic nightmare.
Precisely. Just look at George W. Bush, he entered the US presidency as a neo-conservative and left office a socialist.
To paraphrase my favourite Tory prime minister Harold Macmillan......."events, dear boy, events".
Starmer appears to be as honest as BoJo, just wants to be PM and not interested in the little people or morals and integrity, really like his attitude towards Scotland lets keep the Jocks in their place whilst taking our power and natural resources makes Thatcher look caring.
rone
Free MemberThe flip side of that for me is I actually haven’t figured out what he does deep down genuinely stand-for.
I used to think he was just pretty much an empty suit blowing whichever way the wind took him, but over time I've stopped giving him the benefit of the doubt on that, like I say the few things he actually seems to really stand for are the most right wing parts of his platform. That's the direction he moves in most confidently, that's the only place where the promises seem to mean anything. And any excuses that "he has to do that to win" look completely ridiculous now- if he thinks that, he's incompetent but I don't think he does, I think his lead has given him the confidence to go exactly where he wants.
The tory collapse should be giving Labour the confidence to push real alternatives, instead they're using it to move right. Sound familiar? Because it's not just this election he's trying to win, it's the next 10 years and more of the lies Labour will tell itself.
Even that linked piece details investment in training NHS paid for by taxation changes.
And the investment in the transition to green energy is on the record, despite it realistically not paying for itself for 10 years (Labour pushing through this transition only for a future Tory government to ride in and take the credit for the economic results is a very real risk, but we absolutely have to get on with it).
For some people that’s not enough and just “red Tory”… despite it being absolutely contrary to what the Tories have been doing.
The idea that spending will be “limitless” under Labour, with no regard to what’s happening in the wider economy and the tax take, will be ruthlessly quashed over the next year, don’t expect anything else. And don’t expect the front bench to even mention MMT, obviously.
For some people that’s not enough and just “red Tory”…
Well of course the green prosperity plan is not enough - why would it be ffs?
And they are already backtracking on it anyway :
https://news.sky.com/story/labours-rachel-reeves-backtracks-on-28bn-green-prosperity-scheme-12899279
Labour's Rachel Reeves backtracks on £28bn green prosperity scheme
And I don't know who you think is calling Starmer a "red Tory" but I do know that he is proud to call himself a conservative:
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-real-conservatives-keir-starmer-protect-way-life-2337576
Starmer is clearly doing whatever it takes to become PM. Whether that is part of some master plan to get Labour into power and then do some slightly socialist stuff we will have to wait and see.
Starmer is clearly doing whatever it takes to become PM. Whether that is part of some master plan to get Labour into power and then do some slightly socialist stuff we will have to wait and see.
Yeah but to maintain power then it follows he would have to continue this path.
And also, surely to gain power he might be looking at the electorate's current wants and needs - and go a bit more left perhaps on things that have polling support?
I mean who's going to argue about water nationalisation currently?
Starmer is clearly doing whatever it takes to become PM.
Its unclear that is the case. Considering the gains are mostly from the tories imploding rather than him.
The whatever it takes is problematic in itself. Johnson also believed in that approach.
And the investment in the transition to green energy is on the record,
Because he's never u-turned on previous commitments...
He might appear to be an empty suit with his evanescent pledges but clearly his wealthy backers see in him something they like.
From the same polling…
Unsurprised to discover Keir Starmer is also failing to lead the Australian Labor Party (and government) in the way you want.
They’re a lot less shit than Morrison’s lot were. Just as Biden’s lot are a lot less shit than Trump’s log were. Not perfect.
Not perfect.
If we're talking Starmer, your description is doing some seriously heavy lifting.
I can’t judge Starmer as PM. If he makes it that far, then I will.
As opposition leader he has excelled. 2019 already looks so far away. Johnson gone. Sunak neutered. Poll fortunes reversed. He can still drop the ball though, especially as people get excited about a possible win and try and jostle him into their preferred positions.
As opposition leader he has excelled.
🤣😂
Johnson gone.
And Starmer is responsible for that?
As head of the CPS, Starmer was a senior civil servant and was required to consult the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) for two years after his departure about any roles he wanted to take up.
Oops
The revelation could prove to be embarrassing for Starmer, who was labelled “Mr Rules” by his shadow frontbench colleague Lisa Nandy.
<p style="text-align: right;">As opposition leader he has excelled. 2019 already looks so far away. Johnson gone. Sunak neutered. Poll fortunes reversed</p>
And he's got nothing to say about changing anything for the better whilst being as regressive as the Tories.
You see the kids school meals thing today?
Add it to the list.
Starmer doesn't deserve votes to be honest. He's simply not worked at it - in fact if he'd been off work for 3 years the polling would be the same.
(Johnson neutered himself.)
He can still drop the ball though, especially as people get excited about a possible win and try and jostle him into their preferred positions.
Do you have a preferred position, besides victory? I'm struggling to discern a single reason to vote for him, beyond Not Tory.
Some of this, please…
https://labourlist.org/2023/05/labour-manifesto-2024-election-what-policies-npf-party/
Personally, both GB Energy and the National Wealth Fund investment paths for green energy transition, paired with no more exploration licenses for oil and gas (which the current government not only keep issuing, but giving tax breaks for oil companies that take them) is key. As is turning around what is happening in our schools and health service.
I’m struggling to discern a single reason to vote for him, beyond Not Tory.
That is precisely the conclusion that Starmer wants you to come to.
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-real-conservatives-keir-starmer-protect-way-life-2337576He is a better conservative than any recent Tory leader. He promises the same philosophy, just much better implemented.
And I don't necessarily doubt him on that point.
That is precisely the conclusion that Starmer wants you to come to.
Well not really, as I've concluded that I don't want to vote for him.
Personally, both GB Energy and the National Wealth Fund investment paths for green energy transition, paired with no more exploration licenses for oil and gas (which the current government not only keep issuing, but giving tax breaks for oil companies that take them) is key. As is turning around what is happening in our schools and health service.
We can't afford it apparently.
That’s not what’s been said, it’s being tapered in over the first few years. Reason given is finances, but realistically neither can be at the year on year scale needed from year one, lots of work to be done to implement both, work that can only begin once in office. The sooner there’s an election, the sooner a new government can crack on. Hopefully. Unless voters listen to the “they’re all the same” messages from some quarters and take us further down this rabbit hole of increasing oil and gas dependancy by giving the Tories another 5 years we really can not afford.
He is a better conservative than any recent Tory leader. He promises the same philosophy, just much better implemented.
And that’s why he’s such a profound disappointment; there I was, hoping for someone offering a different philosophy, much better implemented.
Still, at least we’re better off than the Americans, who only have two parties to choose from.
That all depends on the seat, of course.
If we can get more Green MPs, great. I fear they might lose the one seat they have.
More LibDem MPs are needed as well. So many good ones lost in the last 15 years.
Plenty of seats where voting for either of those parties will just help return another Tory MP.
Well not really, as I’ve concluded that I don’t want to vote for him.
But you have concluded that "Not Tory" is a reason. He doesn't care if you "want" to vote for him or not. You either vote for him or first-past-the-post guarantees that whoever else you might vote for won't matter.
He has correctly assumed that you, or at least other pissed-off voters like yourself, won't be voting Tory.
The latest opinion poll gives Labour a 23% lead over the Tories btw, so he is well on course to becoming the next UK prime minister.
We can’t afford it apparently.
Which is why a Labour spokesperson said that while the party would not issue any new licences, it would "continue to use existing fields in the North Sea for decades to come".
And also why.....
The Rosebank oil and gas field west of Shetland is expected to get the go-ahead within weeks, following reassurances from Sir Keir Starmer that he would not block the development if a Labour government comes into power at the next general election.
Yes, the Tories will keep on issuing licences, and giving tax breaks, right up to an election… and beyond if we give them another term. Rolling back on issued licenses isn’t going to be happening, just as I’d hope new renewable projects started if Labour win don’t get pulled if they fail to win a second term. The UK having continuity on long term energy partnerships already committed to, honouring what’s been granted, shouldn’t be controversial.
"The Rosebank oil and gas field west of Shetland is expected to get the go-ahead within weeks, following reassurances from Sir Keir Starmer"
So it would not have got the go-ahead without personal reassurances from Sir Keir Starmer.
If having continuity on long term energy partnerships is the excuse this time what will the excuses be when Labour are in government? Continuity again? Energy security? State of the economy? The energy industry mess left by the Tories?
You’re reading a lot into the wording that Times journalist used.
Anyway, have a good sleep.