Forum menu
II agree Argee - especially your point about the ceasefire motion
However to me as a former lifelong labour supporter, labour working with the tories is a step too far. It ( along with the bain principle of automatically voting against any SNP proposal) is why labour support in Scotland collapsed. Betray your base and be punished for it.
I cannot vote for a labour party that works with the tories ever. Nor can I vote for a brexiteer party.
@argee; I'm finding some of your comments very offensive, and I'm saddened that you seem to blinkered that you fail to acknowledge what most other posters on this thread have so far. Even more so, considering that myself and others have posted information that would help you gain a more objective perspective. I'm saddened that you find the deaths of Gazan children amusing.
Maybe you will enjoy living in a brave neoliberal world. I hope it works out for you.
@argee; I’m finding some of your comments very offensive, and I’m saddened that you seem to blinkered that you fail to acknowledge what most other posters on this thread have so far. Even more so, considering that myself and others have posted information that would help you gain a more objective perspective. I’m saddened that you find the deaths of Gazan children amusing.
I find it offensive that you are trying to twist my comments to say i find the deaths in Gaza amusing, you are trying to justify your opinion through these weird statements, of course if you can list my very offensive comments and provide the backup for them, then i will be content for Mark et al at STW to ban me.
If you don't agree with me, i'm happy with that, but pushing some 'laughing at the deaths of kids' statement to try and justify your opinion is just mental.
What do you want an EU reentry to look like? I tihnk it's reasonable , and a good idea to have it as a middle term aspiration but you can't stick it in as a single term policy for practical , economic and 'political look' reasons. As a single term policy it would be pretty toxic
Anything to get back in. The majority of the UK population are in favour. We will have to beg and grovel but its one of the key things we need to regain some prosperity
there are absolutely no reasons why not apart from fear of the tory press. Economic wise its imperative
You can choose to ignore anything anyone else has said, if it doesn't fit with your own views. That's your prerogative. But unfortunately you don't get to dictate how your comments will be received, or the opinions others will have of you. If you chose to engage politely and with respect, then others might not have such a negative view of you. This is something within your control. Or you can just double down on your offensiveness. As I said; your choice.
"Anything to get back in."
Just as a reminder, it took 2 terms to leave, and that was
a) Within our control (whether we left, obviously terms were negotiated)
b) From a government that had already been in power for 6 years.
Seeking a first term in office whilst making a core pledge on something that is undeliverable within that term? Which at the same time is the most divisive issue in UK politics for decades? That would surely be electoral suicide. Hence why the Labour Party isn't doing it.
People expecting some type of saviour from politicians or political parties will always be disappointed.....
You don't expect Starmer's Labour Party to save us from the Tories? Welcome aboard!!
And I totally agree with you that we should expect politicians to be politicians, after all what else could anyone expect them to be - trapeze artists??
But anyway getting back to Keir Starmer's comment piece in the Daily Telegraph, what do you reckon, argee, about his claim of "the wasted economic opportunities made possible by the split from the EU"? True or not?
According to Starmer: "Voters have been betrayed on Brexit and immigration. I stand ready to deliver"
Do you agree with him that he will deliver on those Tory promises? He seems convinced that he will.
they can’t make promises like nationalisation when there’s. . .
Unfortunately polling does not agree with you, 65% or more of those polled want:
Nationalised water, energy, buses, rail and mail.
Polling by Survation in August 2022
Failing to acknowledge this and seek to deliver will leave us with the current shower staying on. At this rate Starmer is the Kinnock of the 20's all we need is a triumphalist video the day before polling for the comparison to be complete.
EDIT changed electricity for energy. See the Sooz Kempner post on Bluesky https://bsky.app/profile/soozuk.bsky.social/post/3kfmmybr3hc27
they can’t make promises like nationalisation when there’s
Starmer can't make promises ... Is the only constant truth.
Nationalisation won't be an option eventually, it will be necessity. Delusion is the only thing that separates the two.
Its funny how Scotland manages to have state owned stuff that is within the remit of the Scots Parliament.
Starmer can’t make promises … Is the only constant truth.
Nonsense, Starmer is always making promises. He was elected leader of the Labour Party on the back of 10 "pledges". A pledge we all know is a solemn and binding promise.
This sounds like a promise too:
"Voters have been betrayed on Brexit and immigration. I stand ready to deliver”
The question is can he be trusted to deliver on his promises to Daily Telegraph readers more than his previous promises to Labour Party members?
Thanks for the paywall busting link Ernie. That's a good read... they've really done the work over the last few years on what the British people want that Labour were not offering... and have moved there. Not the government I would most want, but one that the voters are likely to elect, and one that'll be a hell of a lot better than this one (not just for me, but for people who have been voting very differently to me all my life). They really have been listening. Well to the "right" of me on immigration on tone, but that's where this country is, especially outside the metropolitan areas. But picking on the nonsense policies of allowing lower wages for immigrants, and grandstanding on denying asylum without due process... plenty for those of us on the left to support there.
they’ve really done the work over the last few years on what the British people want that Labour were not offering
In what way? They have just repeated the shite the hard right rags pump out. Its popularism by the numbers. It might as well have just been a telegraph editoral.
Not the government I would most want, but one that the voters are likely to elect
Depends really. Plenty of the hard right wont vote for him because "labour" so he is heavily reliant on "if you dont vote for him you are voting tory" line. Which is deeply ironic considering he is offering tory policies.
So when Keir Starmer is Prime Minister he won’t waste the opportunities made possible by the split from the EU, he will realise all the possibilities of Brexit.
I look forward to hearing people’s critique of that.
Well it's true, look at all the EU rules about state aid, how can you nationalise things without falling foul of them?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....
Sorry, I couldn't keep a straight face, not when I'm talking about him.
But yes, there are probably a few things about state aid that could be taken advantage of but I'm struggling to
A) think of anything else
And
B) reconcile how that is in any way worth what we have given up since there are clearly workarounds anyway.
Which is deeply ironic considering he is offering tory policies.
They're allowing a ratchet where we head ever rightwards because no one has the stones to stand up and point out the journey is fraught with peril to the country.
how can you nationalise things without falling foul of them?
I very much doubt that Keir Starmer has that in mind when he now refers to "the opportunities made possible by the split from the EU".
I also very much doubt that Daily Telegraph readers thought of 'nationalisation' when they read his "I'm a better Tory than the other lot" comment piece.
I suspect that Daily Telegraph readers knew exactly what Starmer was referring to. The clue is in the word 'immigration', as in:
"Voters have been betrayed on Brexit and immigration. I stand ready to deliver"
how can you nationalise things without falling foul of them?
Scots government did both in and out of the EU, Perfectly possible to put stuff into state ownership. vcommonplace allover europe
I'm thinking of the case where certain states were throwing legal challenges to the funding structure of HPC under the guise of illegal state aid.
Obviously there are work arounds as I said before.
Equally obvious I don't think for a minute this is what he was referring to either.
Well this is going to be a disappointment to Sunday Telegraph readers - it turns out Keir Starmer wasn't saying that he agreed with Thatcher when he praised her in his comment piece :
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Broadcasting House, he later said he had wanted to stress her "sense of purpose" - but it did not mean he agreed with her.
So Starmer believes that Thatcher effected "meaningful change" but not necessarily meaningful change that he agrees with.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67604830
Although to be fair Starmer doesn't say that he disagreed with Thatcher either, just that it does not mean he agreed with her. This is obviously an important distinction.
So to sum up, in a nutshell, whatever it is that you believe in Starmer basically agrees with you.
Unless you are a leftie, in which case he hates you, as you would expect any proper Tory to.
Nonsense, Starmer is always making promises. He was elected leader of the Labour Party on the back of 10 “pledges”. A pledge we all know is a solemn and binding promise.
Okay what's the point of a promise if you can't keep it? It's just vapour.
how can you nationalise things without falling foul of them?
Well the bit that tickles me is we currently believe that falling foul of privatisation appears to be okay and just fine.
And, apparently more reform would fix that - scant evidence reform ever works in a meaningful way. You reform the hell out of things until they may as well be nationalised.
Other news:
Starmer tweaking his Thatcher boomer baiting response as it's gone down very well...
And more Starmer drama Tory love-in:
"Keir Starmer: Labour ‘won’t turn on spending taps’ if it wins election"
There is no point to a government that doesn't do this - especially if the objective is growth.
“Keir Starmer: Labour ‘won’t turn on spending taps’ if it wins election”There is no point to a government that doesn’t do this – especially if the objective is growth.
I'm sure people appreciate that there isn't a bottomless pit of money but the country desperately needs money spending on it. Proper infrastructure and a rapid switch to renewables, heat pumps etc.
It's like he's promising that when he inherits the ramshackle house that the Tories have left him, he'll then just do a bit of wallpapering to hide the cracks. 🙄
I’m sure people appreciate that there isn’t a bottomless pit of money but the country desperately needs money spending on it.
Not bottomless no - but whether you believe in MMT or classic keynes or pretty much any economic theory now is when the spending taps need to be opened to get money moving round the economy. Its called investment
It’s like he’s promising that when he inherits the ramshackle house that the Tories have left him, he’ll then just do a bit of wallpapering to hide the cracks
Whereas the sensible thing to do would be take out a mortgage on it to do it up - which then increases the value by more than what was spent
there isn’t a bottomless pit of money but the country desperately needs money <s> spending on it </s>
How about we invest in things that produce an asset rather than spend to fund lifestyles (being on benefits is a lifestyle of sorts but not one those in receipt would normally choose)?
If we were to refer to investment rather than spending I suspect that arguments about money supply would be somewhat muted as one would need to argue against community benefit and demonstrate that one is a selfish arse.
I’m sure people appreciate that there isn’t a bottomless pit of money but the country desperately needs money spending on it. Proper infrastructure and a rapid switch to renewables, heat pumps etc.
No but yeah.
The UK government has the access to all the money it needs. It is the currency issuer, and its bank the BoE is commited by law to fund all the things it requests through the Supply and Appropriation act.
A better question would be why is the BoE currently paying interest (if we are short of money!) to people with plenty of money when society/infrastructure is in dire needs of cash ?
After all it comes from exactly the same place. Reserves created by the BoE.
'Not turning on the spending taps' might make canvassing a little invidious, 'we'd like you to vote for no change.'
What's he offering, greater efficiency in austerity and privatising the NHS?
The only thing I can suggest he’s offering, as many have already said,
”Vote for us because… well, we’re not them…”
Which is kind of enough (for now) for a lot of people.
What’s he offering, greater efficiency in austerity and privatising the NHS?
Yes - Streeting is on record as saying he wants more privitisation
Good report by The Resolution Foundation here as to how far we fallen as a nation and how to drag ourselves out of it, needless to say the personal growth of the few % of those at the top of the food chain has continued (no surprise there then) but I’m sure starmer will sort everything out for us plebs.
It's those few per cent that are financing him, he'll be sorting everything out for them.
Weirdly enough Starmer is currently giving a speech to the Resolution Foundation
https://www.youtube.com/live/F2O1bwSdWbo?si=SmTuRum0we6jeEvG
”Vote for us because… well, we’re not them…”
Which is kind of enough (for now) for a lot of people.
Although he does seem to be doing his best to convince tories that "we're you but slightly more competent and less corrupt than the previous bunch".
Given his consistent 20 point lead in the polls, it's interesting that Starmer still has his foot to the floor on trying to attract tory voters. He clearly doesn't have any fear of losing significant numbers of voters from the left. Assuming that's the case (and I don't know if it will be) then it's probably the correct strategy to go for the tories jugular. Could mean the difference between a big/massive majority and a complete tory wipeout. I can easily ignore positive (and empty) words about Thatcher if it improves the chances of the tories being eviscerated.
PS that resolution foundation speech was surprisingly ok. Not radical by any means but he at least gives the impression that he wants to do stuff, and do it in the interests of the majority of working people.
(I am aware BTW that this goes against a lot of my previous comments about Starmer but I'm trying to keep an open mind)
Makes BJ look honest
PS that resolution foundation speech was surprisingly ok. Not radical by any means but he at least gives the impression that he wants to do stuff, and do it in the interests of the majority of working people.
I am sure that is right that that is his instict. I think he is a technocrat.
However I have real reservations about some of the advice he is getting and the folk around him like Streeting and Cooper who I think are much more about power and wealth for themselves and I think he is painting himself into a corner and his attitude towards Scotland stinks
He clearly doesn’t have any fear of losing significant numbers of voters from the left.
What's our alternative?
I can easily ignore positive (and empty) words about Thatcher if it improves the chances of the tories being eviscerated.
I can't.
I'm 54.
The mention of that woman's name makes me angry.
I cannot believe that I'll be voting for a less musically literate Ken Clarke through choice.
I think he is a technocrat.
Of course he is. It's the one thing we can be completely certain about. What we don't really know is his determination to do what he claims to want to do when faced with establishment inertia/opposition.
However I have real reservations about some of the advice he is getting and the folk around him like Streeting and Cooper
Reeves is the biggest problem. She represents the banking and economic establishment who will resist any significant change to the existing economic and financial status quo. Streeting and Cooper are bystanders, especially Cooper, who is only there because no one else wants the home office/immigration problem.
Cooper and streeting are thoroughly corrupt. Can't stand either of them
Given his consistent 20 point lead in the polls, it’s interesting that Starmer still has his foot to the floor on trying to attract tory voters. He clearly doesn’t have any fear of losing significant numbers of voters from the left.
Which is a pointless risk considering what he is very unrealistically hoping to gain.
The 25% of the electorate that are hardcore Tory supporters are not going to shift, no matter how right-wing he tries to convince them he is. They will vote Tory at next general election because that is what they always do.
In contrast there is a much more realistic risk imo that voters who were previously willing to vote Labour are so put off by Starmer's incessant lurch to the right that come the general election they stay at home or vote for another party.
In contrast there is a much more realistic risk imo that voters who were previously willing to vote Labour are so put off by Starmer’s incessant lurch to the right that come the general election they stay at home or vote for another party.
I guess the calculus comes down to whether left-inclined voters are more disgusted at Starmer's rightwing rhetoric or the fear of the tories continuing in govt. I think the vast majority will be more worried about the latter and Starmer/Labour clearly agree. Also not so sure about the number of died in the wool tories. I reckon there are huge numbers of traditional tory voters who will consider shifting due to the unique circumstances following the Johnson/Truss/Sunak chaos.
However I have real reservations about some of the advice...
It would appear that he is getting more than just advice, there is growing evidence that Morgan McSweeney is running the show (with probably some input from David Evans).
I suspect the deal is "do as we say and we'll make you PM".
Morgan McSweeney's influence over Starmer appears to predate Starmer becoming party leader. I suspect that Starmer's "10 pledges" were probably McSweeney's idea of how to secure the leadership election.
Starmer is a lawyer, offering arguments based not on what he believes to be true, but instead on his briefs, will come naturally to him.
I guess the calculus comes down to whether left-inclined voters are more disgusted at Starmer’s rightwing rhetoric or the fear of the tories continuing in govt.
The reaction doesn't have to be that strong imo to cost Labour votes. For a lot of people voting is an effort which they very often don't bother doing.
They are much more likely to get their sorry arses down to the polling station on election night if they feel inspired and energised by a political party. Pessimism and a feeling of pointlessness is much more likely to result in them not bothering to make the effort.
The reaction doesn’t have to be that strong imo to cost Labour votes. For a lot of people voting is an effort which they very often don’t bother doing.
True, but after the chaos of the last few years and the pandemic the next election is going to be much more in the minds of voters than previous ones, and that will motivate people to vote one way or the other. It's ironic that the tories stoking a culture war and polarising opinion could backfire on them by boosting the turnout. I'd put money on this election having the highest turnout in history.
It will also be very interesting to see what happens up here. I know its not of much interest to many of you but Starmer said labour need to take seats in Scotland to be legitimate. SNP are clearly working on the "two cheeks of the same arse" line and lets see how much it sticks. SNP look tired and out of ideas in Holyrood and are very vulnerable but I see zero enthusiasm for labour here at all. If there is enthusiasm for labour they could very well take 30 - 40 seats but it seems unlikely to me - but the polling is in such a place that the vagaries of FPTP means a few % either way will make a huge differnce to seats
I agree with Ernie it will not take a lot for labour voters to stay home - its always been an issue and here we do have alternatives to vote for other than Tory