Forum menu
You would be mistaken, teaching should be to encourage the pupil to think for themselves so that they can undertake the part in brackets. It’s not the job of education to save industry/commerce money. Without the ability to learn and think critically we do our young people a disservice and give potential autocrats a free ride.
I think you would be mistaken. "teaching kids things that will actually be useful in their lives " would include the lies of what you are suggesting. Where did I mention teaching things that would save industry/commerce money?
<p style="text-align: left;">is not the same as commitment to Tory budgets. If you actually want to change any minds blatant distortion is unlikely to help. If you’re just sort of mumbling to yourselves I’ll leave you to it.</p>
If you want to change minds point to the times the government/central banks clearly add money to the economy when supposedly they don't have any for public purpose.
You know, use a bit of evidence based logic rather than pretending Labour and Tories aren't really sailing the same ship.
However I wasn't making any particular comment other than money is still making its way into the economy from central banks - despite screeches of monetary brakes being put on things.
Mumbling things ....
See that part where you mention "useful in their lives" that's usually Tory/workplace shorthand for doing training for industry/commerce as you should know. (If you don't then maybe some study may be useful).
If that was not your intention my apologies.
Labour, under the present leadership, has said they will match Tory taxation and spending levels, which makes their commitment the same as the Tories’s
That unsourced Times story doesn't say that, rather vague things about fiscal responsibility and that Reeves won't raise levels of personal taxation during a cost of living crisis.
But I'm impressed by the paywall bypass
Yes it does say exactly that - that the next Labour government will keep taxation and spending limits to those of the Tories's.
If you actually want to change any minds blatant distortion is unlikely to help.
Indeed.
Labour have outlined many tax increases already, they just don’t effect most workers or their families. Your direct and indirect taxes as the normal man/woman on the street are only part of the equation.
Labour have outlined many new and increased spending areas, they have just also explained how that is to be balanced with increases in taxes raised (often after the spending, because).
But keep on having a laugh about chess and whatever else you’re circle jerking about. The pretending it doesn’t matter who wins the next election is the only real “playing games” going on here.
Labour have outlined many tax increases already, they just don’t effect most workers or their families.
You need to tell that to Labour's Shadow Chancellor, apparently no one has told her :
"All policy announcements undergo close scrutiny by Rachel Reeves, the shadow Chancellor, to ensure they do not require additional tax or borrowing."
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-policy-pledges-cost-rise-income-tax-2377898
And as for any tax rises not affecting "most workers or their families" apparently they aren't going to effect top earners either........no one will be paying for these tax rises!
In fact Starmer wants "to lower taxes"
But you carry on pretending that Starmer is offering a radical alternative to the Tories, and dishing out crass personal insults to those who disagree, with comments about "circle jerking" or whatever.
Your direct and indirect taxes as the normal man/woman on the street are only part of the equation.
Changes to income tax rates are not the only way to raise tax revenues. Ask a non-dom. Or a parent of kids going to fee paying schools. Tax changes are coming, and some have already being announced, years out from a manifesto being written, never mind a Labour budget.
carry on pretending that Starmer is offering a radical alternative to the Tories
Who said anything about radical?
dishing out crass personal insults to those who disagree
Ah, bless. Carry on with the games everyone else is just avoiding this thread to keep away from.
Tax changes are coming, and some have already being announced
So over the span of two posts you have changed your position from "Labour have outlined many tax increases" to now no increases just "changes", and not much has been announced because it is so far from a Labour manifesto.
Who said anything about radical?
Now that really takes the biscuit! 😆
Have you seen the Rishi Sunak, Boris Johnson, Suella Braverman, etc, threads? STWers are queuing up to express their total disgust with the current Tory government, apparently they are pretty much evil incarcerated. And utterly stupid and incompetent.
But according to you we don't need a radical alternative?? I had no idea that the consensus was that the Tories hadn't got anything fundamentally wrong and all that was needed was for a Labour government to tweak a few things here and there! 😂
You really are all over the place mate, no wonder that you get in such a strop and resort to crass personal insults.
I detailed some tax changes that will raise more revenue. And off you go on your little games. Time waster.
Yeah your claim of (many) "tax increases" turned into "tax changes" when you saw the quote I posted :
“All policy announcements undergo close scrutiny by Rachel Reeves, the shadow Chancellor, to ensure they do not require additional tax or borrowing.”
Your little game is to be all over the place as you desperately try to defend the indefeasible. And then to, yet again, claim that you have no wish to discuss anything with me, after directly challenging me over a comment which wasn't even aimed at you.
Why don't you actually stick to your alledged preference and don't engage with me? Easiest solution - don't bother reading what I post......solves the problem once and for all; That's what I do with a few posters, rather than endlessly complain.
Going to engage with my examples of Labour already announcing extra taxes on non-doms and schools fees, or just going to keep up the attempted baiting?
See that part where you mention “useful in their lives” that’s usually Tory/workplace shorthand for doing training for industry/commerce as you should know. (If you don’t then maybe some study may be useful).
If that was not your intention my apologies.
No need to apologise. As I am not representing tory/workplace values I wouldn't be saying it from that angle and am well aware of tory/capitalist BS (more stuff for all to be aware of in the "useful in their lives" category so they may not get so easily misled by tories, Daily Mail etc,.))
Some of the points on both sides of this argument are well thought out and provide an interesting range of views to some of us who like to consider a debate's alternatives.
Sadly - the way some debaters on both sides carry on make the debate frankly depressing to read, you sound like bickering kids in a playground and simply saying not to read their posts means that practically half the posts, and a lot of the content is getting lost.
Have a look at yourselves, you're coming across like dicks.
When children learn the formulas of acids its not to remember them in case they need them in later life. Its learning how to 'do' science.
Eight long provocative and unpleasant posts on this page from a person who wants us to ignore him. 🙂
Nothing to add to the thread BTW, I've been told to ignore the incoherent, contradictory nonsense. 😉
Thank you to those who are making informed posts about Labour party policy.
Nothing to add to the thread BTW, I’ve been told to ignore the incoherent, contradictory nonsense. 😉
And yet despite that here you are unable to resist getting your two pennies worth and taking the opportunity of doing a bit of stirring.
How about expressing opinions, if you have any, without resorting to personal attacks and getting angry with others who have different opinions? Most people manage it.
Anyway back to the thread, I'm loving this headline:
With the latest opinions polls showing Labour easily maintaining their 20 plus percent lead over the Tories I think it is probably more a case of Starmer being supremely confident, than feeling it is necessary to abandon your principles to win.
There you go accusing me of being "angry" when there are nothing but smileys on my posts, Ernie. You systematically insult our inteligence and insult us. As for "stirring", read you own posts on this page.
Come on mods, when is somebody going to do something about Ernie pissing everbody off and trashing threads ?
* goes back to ignoring the thread*
I know most of you think Scotland irrelevant but ~Starmer does not agree. this analysis from the gruaniad which is very anti SNP ( note no quotes from the SNP) shows ( IMO ) Starmers weakness well. The rutherglen byelection is a serious test of labour and its move to the right - the the extent the labour candidate is campaigning on a platform of repudiating some of london labours policies. SNP have placed themselves to the left of labour and are using the "two cheeks of the same arse" line which is going to resonate well up here
"Labour to be attacked from the left in crucial Scottish byelection"
It also states that labours lead over the tories has dropped back to " hung parliament" teritory
SCOTTISH Labour’s by-election candidate in Rutherglen and Hamilton West has been challenged to “reject NHS privatisation” after being pictured alongside shadow health secretary Wes Streeting.
The SNP’s health spokesperson at Westminster, Martyn Day, said: "The damaging competition between the Tories and pro-Brexit Labour Party to lurch further to the right, and impose creeping privatisation of the NHS, has set alarm bells ringing in Scotland.
"Like the SNP, the overwhelming majority of people in Scotland are committed to the founding principles of the NHS - and want to see more funding from the UK government, instead of ever increasing private sector involvement.
"I would challenge Michael Shanks to reject this toxic race to the bottom on public services, which should be in public, not profit-driven private sector hands. He must distance himself from yet another damaging Tory-Labour Party policy.
remember the source but its a good indication of the thinking on the pro independence side Labour are going to be pushed on brexit and NHS privitisation and thus both are going to be live issues in the GE
SNP have placed themselves to the left of labour and are using the “two cheeks of the same arse” line which is going to resonate well up here
“Labour to be attacked from the left in crucial Scottish byelection”
To claim that Labour and the Tories are two cheeks of the same arse is an obvious, and easy, line of attack. Especially when Starmer appears to be determined to make the difference between Labour and the Tories less and less noticeable.
Currently the SNP lead over Labour in Scotland is about 3%, which is significantly less than it was a year ago when it was over 20%, so they certainly have their work cut out.
But yeah, Starmer attempting to ape the Tories should play well for the SNP.
It also states that labours lead over the tories has dropped back to ” hung parliament” teritory
The very latest poll, which is from Omnisis, gives Labour, nationally, a very healthy 22% lead over the Tories, which would give them a huge parliamentry majority.
https://twitter.com/Omnisis/status/1687463535255662592
And more evidence of what an extraordinarily lucky party leader Starmer is:
The SNP’s vote share of 35% is the joint-second lowest figure they have polled in a hypothetical Westminster election in any publicly released poll conducted by any company since October 2014.
This obviously does not reflect on the personal success Starmer has had wooing Scottish voters and everything to do with the self-inflicted crisis facing the SNP.
With Labour's two greatest foes, the Tories and the SNP, both in crises totally of their own making, Starmer must feel like the luckiest politician in the world. Who needs charisma and/or policies ?
The fact that the SNP are still leading should be of great concern to Starmer. SNP are too long in power, in a self inflicted crisis and he still cannot overtake them
Martin Forde KC, the senior lawyer commissioned by Starmer to investigate the Labour party’s culture, said legal professionals from across the political spectrum had expressed their bewilderment that the Labour leader had not said anything after such personal attacks, even after former Conservative law officers criticised the political rhetoric aimed at “lefty lawyers” on Friday.
He really can't be this bad can he? I realise he doesn't want to blow the chances of a Labour win and doesn't want to give the tories/media anything to dig up or focus on come the election but really.
It is remarkable that given the unpopularity of the Tories, Starmer is trying so hard to be like them. No 'moderate' government has ever been elected and then moved left, it is always the reverse.
Why won't he play the game the Tories want!? It's bewildering. Well, it really isn't... is it.
It’s bewildering. Well, it really isn’t… is it.
Yes actually it is.
This is the sort of craven bending to the hard right press demands that have landed us in such a mess. The utter refusal to stand up to the tory lies and allowing them to portray their distorted image of the UK as what is patriotic.
The tories have put us into a spiral we arent going to get out of it by Starmer bowing to their lies.
By distancing himself from lawyers who are helping those currently being illegally targeted by the government, and forcing a Tory Home Secretary to comply with the law, Starmer is playing right into their hands.
He should be focusing on how unacceptable, and extremely dangerous, it is for a government not to comply with national and international law.
The whole legal profession, across the political spectrum, is rallying behind a lawyer who is being vilified by Tory Central Office for helping those being denied their legal rights, you would expect the Leader of the Opposition, a barrister and former DPP, to have an opinion on the matter.
No?
Yes actually it is.
This is the sort of craven bending to the hard right press demands that have landed us in such a mess. The utter refusal to stand up to the tory lies and allowing them to portray their distorted image of the UK as what is patriotic.
The tories have put us into a spiral we arent going to get out of it by Starmer bowing to their lies.
I'm on repeat but it's not as if their aren't a million things to take aim and get the public on side.
(I don't see this as Starmer's agenda though - he's clearly not as passionate as he led us all to believe and is just running with the easy right-wing vote. Though I was never convinced from the start.)
Speaking in Scotland - whose voters tend to be more left-wing than those in England - the Labour leader said that in the “recent past” his party had been “afraid to speak the language of class”.
But he said that would not be the case in “my Labour Party”
Starmer really is shameless and will say whatever he believes his audience wants to hear.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...well I have others."
- G. Marx
Another day another Reeves/Starmer regression.
https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1695855919333056705?t=oYhadEMX_PN8zA4BZinAbg&s=19
Bed wetting times.
Just what exactly are they going to do apart from wait for growth? UK is mostly a low to no growth country these days.
So good luck with that.
Not even trying for your vote.
Supertanskiii having a meltdown trying to defend Starmer whilst having zero understanding of what a progressive country might look like.
Just not Tory is still right-wing.
From Murphy's blog:
The economic truths that seem to have passed Labour by
Posted on August 28 2023
I commented yesterday on LBC on Rachel Reeves telling the Sunday Telegraph that she has no plans to increase taxes on the wealthiest people in the UK.
The FT has an article this morning summarising her comments. At the core of their piece, and her comments, is this paragraph:
Speaking to the Sunday Telegraph, Reeves said Labour had no need to levy any form of wealth tax because her party would be rigorous in holding down public spending.
This is a staggering claim because there are so many assumptions implicit in that suggestion, which is a fair synopsis of the Telegraph article, which I have read.
First, there is an implication that taxes fund spending. They do not, of course. The Bank of England funds spending with the monetary equation being balanced by a combination of tax, borrowing and money creation. Reeves must know that but does not acknowledge it. To pretend that tax and spending are directly related, as she implies, is to deny the whole reality of fiscal policy and the economic tools within it.
Second, Reeves ignores the fact that tax is an instrument of social policy. It is the primary tool available for tackling inequality at the top end of the income and wealth spectrums, and what the statement she has made implies is that Labour must be happy with the current levels of inequality that exist in the UK even though they are very clearly destructive for society as a whole. That is a quite staggering position for a party on the supposed left of politics.
Third, this implies that Reeves believes that those with wealth are the generators of value in the economy. Actually, it is the spending power of people and government that, in combination, create value in our economy. But she thinks otherwise. The whole idea that wealth, disconnected as it now is from the making of investment in the economy, has anything to do with value generation is absurd, but this fundamental economic truth has clearly not yet permeated the core of the current Labour Party.
Fourth, the idea that all wealth is equal is implicit in this claim. That is not true. Wealth from, for example, speculation and rent extraction are not value-adding activities for the economy, and to suggest that they should enjoy low taxation (as they do) is an insult to those who work for a living.
Fifth, the idea that the current obvious injustices within the tax system should be retained - which means that those with income from unearned sources will continue to pay much less on their income and gains than do those with income from work - is being supported by Reeves, which is simply contrary to any known form of economic justice.
Sixth, there is the issue of spending. What Reeves is promising is austerity when what we need is spending to tackle the enormous problems that we face that cannot be resolved by private sector spending.
So why do this? Reeves is pandering to the idea put forward by Sangita Myska at the start of my interview with her yesterday that if we tax more, people have less to spend, and so the country is worse off. This is not true, of course. Government spending does not go into a bottomless pit, never to be seen again. It is spent on people and with businesses. In other words, government sending becomes other people's income. They pay tax on that and then, by and large, spend the rest. As a result, government spending stimulates the economy. What is more, it does so to much greater effect than does leaving income with the wealthy, who simply save what they get - which is precisely why we have such enormous wealth inequality in the UK now. Since, as a result, government spending has a much higher multiplier effect than leaving income with the well-off, the best way to grow the economy is to tax the rich and for the government to spend more - with the added benefit of much improved public services along the way. But again, Labour does not seem to know this.
Instead, Labour wants to maintain the status quo. And as Sangita Myska asked in her programme, what is the point of that when almost nothing seems to work now? I wish I could answer that question, but I cannot.
It is staggering that Labour is no longer bothered by inequality. What is it for?
I think this sums it up well.......
https://capx.co/keir-starmers-only-policy-is-getting-elected/
And I reckon this is a line the Tories will be pushing when the general election campaign gets in full swing:
"Why should the public trust Starmer when he breaks his promises to Labour members who elected him?"
If Starmer can't be trusted not to lie to his own party members why should Tory voters trust him not to lie to them?
I guess it is very possible that he feels more loyalty towards Tory voters than he does towards members of his own party, but are they going to be convinced?
Yeah.
I keep hearing the argument he has to convince Tory voters blah blah with Tory projects.
Can he not convince all prospective voters with solid arguments about how to fix the country? There are loads.
Lame.
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1698244440962560443?t=EZyvwzFM8olpSU6bMSDCVQ&s=19
Tackling the cost of living crisis by not tackling the cost of living crisis.
And it is only a Tory cost of living crisis as they are in power. If Labour had been in power it would be a Labour cost of living crisis as they have never proposed anything radical (or even not radical) that would have changed what has happened over the last few years.
I thought the 2017 and 2019 election manifestos were quite radical.
But apparently too radical for the majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party.
Only appeared radical because we've all become to accept neoliberalism as the only way to do things I guess.
So yeah, radical on the one had but essentially just correcting the mess of right-wing destruction.
I was reading some great stuff earlier about how Neoclassical economists dominate every facet of society and universities. So it's really hard for people to break the mould of what we've got; this is despite complex models of the economy totally falling apart when a crisis occurs - they simply don't work and the state has to fix stuff. Said economists then simply retool their complex models and go again until they break. It's preposterous.
This is what sets MMT apart - it starts by accurately describing the government's money operations that underpin current sovereign government finances. It then says here are the facts - you could do this with it.
No other economic theory does this.
Neoclassical models do not take this approach - they say the private sector funds everything - here's a complex model to make it do something for everyone via trickle-down.
Flops.
The model didn't work -let's just retool the same thinking using a better model.
Only appeared radical because we’ve all become to accept neoliberalism as the only way to do things I guess.
So radical then. The person who wrote the 2017 Labour manifesto was also responsible for writing this:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Failed-Experiment-Build-Economy-Works/dp/1871204283
I think it is fair to say that Andrew Fisher sees neoliberalism as a failed experiment.
Andrew Fisher (whilst I will always give time to) is still saddled with the idea that you need to take tax from the rich to pay for things. Clue HMRC account at the BoE is not connected to the Spending account. There is an end of sweep the seeks to clear balances. Much of the left are currently stuck with this it appears and doomed to failure because they don't recognise the structure of government finances.
I'm sorry but it's still not what I would call radical. That said I agree with probably everything else Fisher might offer up.
The school uniform thing seems to be a strange battle for labour to choose to lose.
I mean, is there really any difference between charcoal grey trousers and white shirts from e.g ASDA or from a 'special supplier' that charges a lot more for the same thing?
Has this ever been tested in court?
I can't see how it's legal. It stinks of racketeering.
Labour will 'limit the number of branded items' oh really.
So a primark skirt is OK, as long as its paired with Loaks or Jimmy Choos?
What a joke.
I’m sorry but it’s still not what I would call radical.
I beg to differ. IMO it provides a radical alternative to the current multiparty neoliberal consensus.
It might not be revolutionary but it does have some redeeming qualities imo. For which for me the most important is that it is both believable and convincing, and makes a compelling argument for a social-democratic alternative.
Politics in our current society is about compromise and pragmatism, although vitally it should not include abandoning your core values.
Labour did far far better than it was expected to do in the 2017 general election. I think it is probably safe to say that this wasn't down to Jeremy Corbyn's irresistible charisma, his impeccable politically correct credentials, or his jam making skills.
Labour's fortunes started to change in 2017 (Theresa May only called an unnecessary GE because the pollsters gave the Tories such a huge lead) when the Labour manifesto was first leaked to the press.
People are prepared to listen to, and even support, a radical alternative to neoliberalism if they believe that it is doable. The manifesto written by Andrew Fisher managed to convince a sufficient number of voters to rob the Tories of their previous very comfortable majority.
Unfortunately two years later as a consequence of massive opposition from a majority of the Parliamentry Labour Party voters were far less convinced that the manifesto commitments were doable.
Although interestingly polls showed that voters still backed many of the policies if they weren't told that they were Labour policies.
Edit: The point I am trying to make is that the arguments behind MMT are going to be far harder to sell to voters which have been sold the Thatcher lie that "there is no government money, only taxpayer's money" for the last 45 years.
The school uniform thing seems to be a strange battle for labour to choose to lose
I think it is bang on trend for the current labour party, a veneer of change to mask keeping the same trajectory as now.