Forum menu
I’d put money on this election having the highest turnout in history.
Voters are sick of this lot, but are more realistic about how long it's going to take to clear up their mess than some on here. Anyone expecting unicorns and rainbows in the first few years of a possible Labour administration is being utterly unrealistic. Over promising wouldn't be believed by most, and would deepen mistrust in government by everyone else once the reality of the task ahead destroys such promises as sure as day turns to night. The circumstances the UK finds itself in, not least because of a series of decisions our government (with "our" support) has taken since 2008, is pretty dire. Some people can't see how deep the hole is yet... or how much worse it could still get for years to come. The next election is about slowing the decline at first, before we even get to a situation where things improve. All very depressing. Fantasy politics might feel like "hope" to those peddling it... but it will turn people away from Labour if they embrace it, both before and after the next election. We need rid of the Tories... but it won't be like Bobby in Dallas the day after they lose the election, which I hope they do... it won't be day zero where we can ignore or reverse everything they have been put in motion. And that's looking at things now... god knows what further salting of the earth they might carry up between now an election. Nothing's off the table for them as the desperation sets in... 😔
And that’s looking at things now… god knows what further salting of the earth they might carry up between now an election. Nothing’s off the table for them as the desperation sets in… 😔
They'll do almost nothing in the runup to the next election. All it's going to be is more pointless culture war virtue (or rather the opposite) signalling about immigration and net zero.
Also can you see Sunak running a good campaign? Given his propensity to patronise people and his petulant response to difficult questions it'll be Theresa May all over again.
Voters are sick of this lot, but are more realistic about how long it’s going to take to clear up their mess than some on here.
Who are these people exactly? Outside of your need to feel superior and excuse support for someone who is offering little.
I dont think anyone is underestimating the size of the problem but just disagreeing with the idea that keeping doing what the tories are doing but more competently isnt going to solve things.
You seem to be wanting to repeat the same mistakes made in 1997 by agreeing to keep policies the tories themselves admitted they werent going to keep to.
If all you do is slow the damage then in 2029 what do you think is going to happen when the hard right tories promise the world as they always do and the voters look at the failure of Starmerites to provide an alternative?
They’ll do almost nothing in the runup to the next election.
I hope you're right. I fear you are wrong, especially on health, care, education, transport... and trading conditions for SMEs... retail, manufacturing and services...
Outside of your need to feel superior
**** off.
They’ll do almost nothing in the runup to the next election
They have done so to some degree. For example the horrendous disability assessors companies have been given contracts of up to eight years recently so even if Starmer does decide to break from hard right politics it will cost a fortune to pay them off early.
Cooper and streeting are thoroughly corrupt. Can’t stand either of them
Genuine question TJ, why do you believe Yvette Cooper is corrupt? She’s perhaps bland in the same vein that a lot of European politicians come across as bland, but she’s always struck me as one of the more competent MPs. A view possibly shared by her constituents who, despite her being a relatively vocal Remainer in a predominantly Leave constituency, still voted for her in the general election.
MIldred - her unrepentant behaviour over the expenses scandal. Her and Balls absolutely took the piss and became rich off expenses - flipping which property was their primary residence numerous times so they could renovate 3 houses on expenses and never even apologised. she was one of the worst for doing so. its all about the money for her. she also takes donations that look suspcious although not at the levels some tories do<br /><br />I simply do not trust her at all. Snout firmly in trough
If we were to refer to investment rather than spending I suspect that arguments about money supply would be somewhat muted
Absolutely. And here’s an independent look at some of the additional (arguably the key) investment proposed by Labour:
https://ifs.org.uk/articles/look-under-hood-labours-investment-plans
And “spending” increases that aren’t capital investment are also proposed, but so are tax changes to pair with them.
Labour are proposing investing more.
Labour are proposing spending more.
What they aren’t doing is making open ended day to day spending commitments without additional revenue. Yes, yes, MMT, but that isn’t a good first step towards restoring trust in the UK again (be that internally or as regards the view from outside the UK). Something far more boring has to happen in the next parliament, run away inflation and/or devaluation isn’t a risk we can take. But more investment and spending is planned, if Labour wins. Don’t let the talk of “living within our means” in day to day spending lead you towards believing the Tories and Labour are proposing the same plan for the next 5 to 10 years. They are not.
After an admittedly half arsed, I’m in the middle of other stuff, google search it appears that she over claimed by circa £1300, which she repaid & also paid capital gains on her house moves, without any prompting.
So in the grand scheme of things, and definitely relatively speaking (for MPs), is this corrupt? For crazy expenses see Barbara Follet’s £42k repayment or Derek Conway paying his sons £14k as researchers.
I personally cannot see why any MP needs the expenses allowance they receive; it seems to elevate them from public servants, for which they receive a good wage, to positions of outright privilege.
Im only going from memory but you have to add in Ed Balls as well. they had 3 houses between them, flipped which was the primary residence several times, paid for all 3 renovations from expenses and two of the houses mortgages<br /><br />Nothing illegal which is why she didn't have to pay much back. But certainly snouts in the trough big time. completely unrepentant as well. Her and Balls became millionaires off this action
also look into the donations both received - plenty of conflict of interest.
Don’t let the talk of “living within our means” in day to day spending lead you towards believing the Tories and Labour are proposing the same plan for the next 5 to 10 years.
The name of the game in politics ATM is pretending you're not going to spend any money whilst figuring out ways of doing so without anyone noticing. It's pretty stupid but here we are, this is where the national finances as a credit card narrative leads. 🤷♂️
Spending/investment/borrowing/money printing (whatever you want to call it) will increase for no other reason than it is required. The alternative is further decline and labour being voted out in 2028/9. Voters expect labour govts to spend more, if they don't they won't last long.
kelvin
Full Member**** off.
You don't mind dishing it out with contemptuous and dismissive talk of "unicorns and rainbows" but you don't like being on the recieving end, do you? Typical centrist!
So anyway where are the "unicorns and rainbows" in these ten commitments?
https://www.indy100.com/politics/keir-starmer-labour-leadership-pledges-2666421303
Aren't they committed to renationalising rail as the contracts expire? I don't know how long that will take but it's at least one example of spending with benefit to the public, with some degree of softening for swing voters.
I suspect that starmer's main stream media rhetoric is somewhat at odds with the manifesto labour will present. But the question will be whether his rhetoric will ruin any trust in the manifesto being enacted.
I worry the danger of it all is that safe seats have the vote split towards greens leaving opportunities for the Tories. I think he's taking it too far; praising Thatcher was completely unnecessary to get his point across
I think he’s taking it too far; praising Thatcher was completely unnecessary to get his point across
It's more than just public rhetoric praising Thatcher - quietly behind the scenes Starmer has acted to stamp out any criticism of the woman he says he admires :
"Sir Keir Starmer’s top team prevented a shadow minister from criticising Margaret Thatcher"
Remember the ridicule that Liz Truss received on stw, and elsewhere, for declaring her admiration for Thatcher?
It turns out that the centrists don't mind if Starmer does the same!
Aren’t they committed to renationalising rail as the contracts expire?
Not as far as I am aware. One of his ten pledges was state ownership of railways IIRC but since rowed back on
mebies aye mebbis naw on that one. Depends how much the rail companies bribe them as most of the shadow front bench are bought for pennies and are there with their hands out
The Tories have been quietly re-nationalising the railways for a while now, because frankly they had no choice.
Starmer is still not backing rail nationalisation because the Tories have not publicly declared that it is their policy.
Yes, yes, MMT, but that isn’t a good first step towards restoring trust in the UK again (be that internally or as regards the view from outside the UK)
Because talking up the fabrication of fiscal rules is a good way of gaining trust?
Fiscal rules are made up and self-imposed, with no modelling at all.
If that's a good way of changing the narrative and making things better then we're not on the same page.
All that's happening is the Labour party are prolonging the agony with this line.
The Tories will attack them irrespective.
A few bits of economic truth:
1) fiscal rules are a fabrication. There's nothing behind it other than to pretend the government is a household. It's not. It can't be - the government has its own bank.
2) The government can't save for a rainy day - see the Tories pretend they create fiscal space every now and again whilst at the same time talking up an apparent out of control 'debt'. Government's don't save money in a pot. There is no fiscal operation at the BoE to allow for this. Money is either created (spending) or destroyed (taxation). It's not saved.
3) Government 'debt' is a private sector reserve drain. So the government spends new money on public services through the commercial bank system and it matches the spending with 'borrowing' or debt issuance that is to effectively take money out of the private sector to match the new spending. (This goes back to gold standard operations. And is entirely optional in a Fiat system.) The government can always meet its obligations to pay it back.
This system is a swap of reserves (base money or previous government spending in the private sector for bonds, interest bearing money. Bonds are more or less the same as money as far as the government's books are concerned. Bonds are interest bearing and give the private sector a safe place to put money.
But they don't fund spending.
So what are fiscal rules for other than to perpetuate a myth?
A Tory myth.
Sorry that was coffee fuelled off topic-ness.
Anyway in my point - fiscal rules are now a way to gain trust of the public by pretending you can't fix massive Tory inflicted problems that affect all of us - by misrepresenting (at best) government finances?
But remember, Starmer is all about being honest to the public - I heard him say it just a couple of days ago.
Most people realise the country is in a state (with recent reports only highlighting that), Starmer coming out and saying we are investing in lots of things to make it better for everyone and explaining that will not directly impact them in monetary terms is simple enough isn't it.
The Tories have been quietly re-nationalising the railways for a while now, because frankly they had no choice.
Nah they have been keeping with the core tory principle of privatise profits and socialise losses.
The ones under direct state control are only there until the public sector can sort out the mess and then it will be handed back to be run by the private sector on a nicely profitable basis.
and then it will be handed back to be run by the private sector
That's what the Tories keep saying, and what they want you to believe, but in reality nationalisation of the railways has been advancing ever since Railtrack was nationalised.
How the Tories nationalised almost half of Britain’s railway network by stealth
"The Transport Secretary insisted that the nationalisation of the Transpennine Express was “temporary”.
The pledge was treated with incredulity by the train industry, who have seen nothing but a growing state influence in the sector in recent years.
Approaching half of Britain’s trains are now directly run by the state following the nationalisation of Transpennine Express, according to analysis of official statistics by this newspaper."
Quoted from the indy today:
Sir Keir Starmer would be welcomed into the Conservative Party with “open arms”, Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg has said.
The top Tory and arch-Brexiteer said the Labour leader’s recent article in the Telegraph, in which Sir Keir praised Margaret Thatcher, sounded like a Conservative minister launching a leadership bid.
Sir Keir’s article, under the headline “voters have been betrayed on Brexit and immigration”, read like something by “the most ardent of Eurosceptics” or a “Trussite”, Sir Jacob added.
He added: “As a Tory member, I would like to extend a welcome to the Leader of the Opposition with open arms.”
“voters have been betrayed on Brexit and immigration”, read like something by “the most ardent of Eurosceptics” or a “Trussite”
TBH I missed a trick when I posted that headline on this thread a couple of days ago.
What I should have done is posted the "voters have been betrayed on Brexit and immigration" quote on the Suella Braverman or Liz Truss threads without attributing it to Starmer.
And then sat back as the centrists queued up to denounce Braverman or Truss for being batshit/deluded/pandering to elderly senile Home Counties racists.
Correctly attributing it to Starmer simply resulted in deafening silence from the Tory-hating centrists.
Correctly attributing it to Starmer simply resulted in deafening silence from the Tory-hating centrists.
Too busy justifying his Thatcher commentary.
https://twitter.com/RachelReevesMP/status/1733033290951454783?t=Med583Z4yvwQ3oEdwijCLg&s=19
The city only adds value to itself.
Labour seem to have a massive problem at spotting the country's actual problems.
We don't need more city endorsement, we need investment in tangibles outside of London.
FFS Labour simply have to invest in the country with public money. There's a crumbling world out there to fix and deploy resources to.
1 term Labour promising more conservatism aka more things that go wrong.
So it turns out that Keir Starmer has a much more hostile opinion of Margaret Thatcher when he is in the company of Labour supporters in Glasgow, compared to when he is expressing his admiration for her to Sunday Telegraph readers. He really is full of shit!
"Now Keir Starmer says Margaret Thatcher did ‘terrible things’, days after piling praise on the former PM"
I find this bit intriguing:
he said: “The point I was trying to make in a piece that we penned last week is that ......
Who is "we" in a piece that "we penned"? Is he using the royal "we", as Thatcher in her arrogance was known to do, or is he letting slip that Morgan McSweeney writes all his stuff for him?
So it turns out that Keir Starmer has a much more hostile opinion of Margaret Thatcher when he is in the company of Labour supporters in Glasgow,
I particularly enjoyed the hostile reception that Starmer received at Glasgow Central station
You could praise Thatcher (as you could Hitler) for getting things done and bringing about change. Clearly the things they got done, how they did them and the impact of them is not so great!
But how or why would any Labour leader ever bring up the subject of Thatcher in anything but a completely negative way.
But how or why would any Labour leader ever bring up the subject of Thatcher in anything but a completely negative way.
And especially the working class's general hatred of her. It's a total home goal.
The kind of people that believe Thatcher to be genius are simply people that have been lucky with money and life, and have no understanding how the economy is stacked up against us - and how it could be so much better.
I mean concentrating state wealth into assets for a few people is hardly the miracle job that is portrayed in support of Thatcherism.
And especially the working class’s general hatred of her. It’s a total home goal.
If Sir Keir Starmer believes that the 'Mandelson Rule' still applies he undoubtedly won't see it as an own goal:
"Your preoccupation with the working-class vote is wrong. They’ve got nowhere to go” - Peter Mandelson to Peter Hain, 1999
Although Red Wall 2019 should have challenged the theory that Labour can ignore working-class and still take their votes for granted.
It was something he didn't really need to say though. Like a lot of his stupid robot comments.
As for the working class they can both hate Thatcher and still be coaxed into talking up the right - mostly because the left haven't done enough for them.
It is not just the working class vote though, people who used to support Labour (pre Starmer) and those switching to Labour now would on the whole hate everything about Thatcher I would guess.
People who appreciate what Thatcher did are already going to be voting Tory whatever crap Starmer comes out with.
True, Kerley - I'm speaking very much from my locality (Wallers).
And especially the working class’s general hatred of her. It’s a total home goal.
Plenty of working class people voted for her, she wouldn't have won otherwise.
It was something he didn’t really need to say though.
No doubt Starmer and his advisors would disagree, I am sure that they see it as an important part of their strategy.
Gordon Brown didn't "have" to invite Margaret Thatcher to Downing Street for tea and yet that was precisely he did as soon as he became Prime Minister:
Thatcher visits Brown for tea at No 10
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/sep/13/politicalnews.uk
The purpose? Well it wasn't to woo Tory voters for a general election which was still 3 years away. His main concern was to send out a very clear message that no one, particularly in the Labour Party, should expect a change in direction following Tony Blair's resignation.
Inviting Thatcher for tea did precisely that. Remember Thatcher herself claimed that the creation of New Labour was her greatest success.
Remember also that the right-wing within the Labour Party aren't simply engaged in a battle against the Tories, ever since Blair became leader they have been engaged in a battle against the left.
Politics involves psychological warfare as much as anything else. Declaring admiration for Thatcher helps to lower the morale and expectations of those who are hoping for a change of direction.
Labour under Keir Starmer has already declared that no hope is better than what they claim to be false hope. It is very important to them to practically destroy all hope. And Starmer has been doing an excellent job of that. Praising Thatcher is part of it.
Plenty of working class people voted for her, she wouldn’t have won otherwise
Fair point. But I'm surmising she's hated by more working class types currently - than middle and upper. And this is a reflection of things now rather than when people voted at the time.
I suppose this is the danger of grouping people anecdotally by class. It's all a bit mixed up these days.
she’s hated by more working class types currently
As she was during her premiership. The so-called "Red Wall" remained solidly Labour throughout the time she was Prime Minister.
Thatcher was actually more successful getting young people to vote Tory, in terms of demographics.
Either way my hatred of her is both rational and irrational!
I remember my dad at the time (a miner who suffered a life changing injury at the pit.) And watching him doing two jobs and many hours - whilst all my other mate's parents were all enjoying their short term bonus British Telecom / Gas cheques.
Something about that era never squared with me as a I realised some people just came into money without any hard work at all - when in fact the thing we all owned (and built up by) was being sold off to a lucky few.
But, we were the Labour voters and they were the Tory supporters. That injustice has only gotten worse, hence my absolute disdain for Conservative values - mostly parasitic, with the love the false wealth creation of arguments the City.
No way can I sit by and watch Starmer "phone-in" these values knowing what I know now.
To me that looks like an obvious political move rather than an economic one
But given the state of the nation don't you think those politics are perhaps a bit cock-eyed these days?
I haven't seen a chart on the perception of the City recently but we all know the politics of supporting water nationalisation is pretty popular? So why not go the progressive route? Better optics - much better outcomes
It's only seems to be the likes of Farage and Tice singing the Cities financial praises these days.
I'm not so sure, plenty of people working in education, healthcare, local government and the civil service would be notionally 'middle class' and have great disdain for Thatcherite values. Whereas I've come across a number of self-employed builder types who imagine Tory values are about supporting people 'who want to get on' and not spongers etc. Many white collar jobs have been proletarianised and that process continues. People who sell their labour power are the working class whether they realise it or not.
Just another thought too Molgrips it was the last Labour government that had to bail out the banking system - during the GFC.
Seriously short memories from them. 140bn of public money - and of course it was a sensible move but the slap on the wrist and toxic outcomes have been sidelined.
I'm surprised (or not) that doesn't get reflected on when Reeves is talking up City finances.
Whereas I’ve come across a number of self-employed builder types who imagine Tory values are about supporting people ‘who want to get on’ and not spongers etc
Yes I've come across that too.
I still maintain that's the left not doing its job properly rather than the right doing a really good job of anything. Easy to bang on about spongers, ****less.
(And all the headwinds that come with communist broadband.)
A change in narrative is what's needed.
It's funny how a the UK owning its own utilities is considered a bad thing rather than the lack of tangible patriotism the market has delivered.
Think we can all stop worrying, it turns out Starmer is a "red-green" radicalist who has managed to position himself in the heart of the establishment so he can bring about a Trotskyite revolution.