Forum menu
I think they go very lightly on Starmer, he’s their man
Absolutely!
Exactly – Corbyn offered a better alternative and look what happened. Okay he was useless in ways that allowed the attacks from Media/Tory party but the alternative was there for people to take but they seemed more interested getting Brexit done if I remember…
But the establishment hated Corbyn and Labour had an impossible Brexit position.
With those things behind us why can't Starmer offer a better alternative? And we now have the baggage of an even more damaged society.
Just make the arguments stronger - do battle with the failed elements of Capitalism!
I just think there's too much throwing in the towel going off and subservience to the establishment class.
I don't think because one leader has failed that the evidence is lacking of a failed state - and the will for change.
When the Centrists get eaten up during a recession things might be very different.
It's not as if we're short of things to point out that are broken either.
Evidence lines the way.
Exactly – Corbyn offered a better alternative and look what happened.
I think the attacks from within his own party did more damage than anything the MSM threw at him.
The Labour Party showed they have no interest in representing the best interests of the populace with that little debacle.
You'd think so but I looked at the 2023 council election results for Rutland, out of 27 seats the Tories got 7. Blimey we had to escape from there to the socialist republic of S.Yorks. If it can happen there, there world's your lobster.
More so in the older generations and they tend to favour the Tory party *and* actually get out and vote
The younger generations might get out to vote more if they were given a better reason to vote for something other than "suck it up petal, you have to pay for the economic mismanagement of the generations that went before you, tough luck if asset inflation means you can never buy a home, invest in a pension or get a stake in life, what do you mean you want the employment protection that your parents had, don't be such a snowflake get out there and earn your crust in the gig economy".
Worth a look.
Worth a look.
Study undertaken where which voting systems were in place?
A simple presentation here showing why when if you don't spend on the needed things - expect poor outcomes.
And absolutely why the concern of lowering national debt will kill growth and thus the wider economy.
You'd think these idiots - Starmer and Sunak would have noticed by now the correlation between growth and government spending.
Lower investment, national debt (the country's savings) = a dying economy.
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1745116163015655883?t=fwlhxGLbBPHT-IYcyDhhJg&s=19
Put simply lower national debt - lower growth.
Did any see the piss poor Rachel Reeves out on the town Tory tax talk? It was ****ing terrible.
Rachel Reeves 'misspoke' in tax rises claim
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67892958
This is what happens when you are essentially arguing over nothing.
'misspoke'.
It's a good job the Tories are terrible.
Deleted post. Bad formatting for some reason.
Just saw a party political broadcast by Labour on ITV1.
They really are preparing for a May election aren't they?
They have to. Even if it isn’t.
Candidate selection is progressing with that assumption, we voted for ours just before Christmas… and some seats who selected earlier are pushing on with leafleting and doorstepping as if it could be an election anytime. The Tories will vastly out spend everyone else nationally… so having people doing what they can locally… as often and for as long as possible, is the only way for the other parties to try and bring some balance to the campaigns.
There are local elections in May in many areas anyway, no matter what Sunak says. He can’t avoid voters completely. So campaigning won’t be wasted.
Reeves being on the 'side' of people in Davos. She really is Capitalist dim wit.
"We wouldn't do anything with tax to deter that investment"
This is basically nonsense; anyone with half a brain knows most investment comes before tax is applied. And becomes tax deductable irrespective.
All of these people need basic accountancy lessons.
She actually should be saying the opposite we will offer incentives for investment.
"The lifeblood of economic growth is private investment."
Toss. Utter toss
I really hope the JPmorgan breakfast she attended leaves a bitter after taste.
And becomes tax deductable irrespective.
And she's declaring that Labour would seek to keep that. Tax rules in this area change all the time (for example super-deductions and now full expensing). Labour are likely to make changes of their own (arguably there are tax breaks aimed at capital investment that are taken advantage of by some simply to avoid/shift tax liability without really investing in the UK... and other breaks that are not in practice made available to smaller UK companies that really could do with them) but she is seeking to reassure the private sector that the tax system will still incentivise investment not deter it if there is a change in government.
“The lifeblood of economic growth is private investment.”
Did she actually say that ...... so John Maynard Keynes was talking shite?
Who would have thought that Keynes would one day become too left-wing for the Labour Party?
And btw Reeves certainly isn't stupid. She might be a manipulative liar though.
So... she should be telling people who could be involved in private investment in the UK (rather than elsewhere) that what they do is irrelevant to the UK economy (rather than its "lifeblood")... so don't bother... and then head home feeling smug that she's put them in her place? I suppose she could... I mean, they need us more than we need them... but why shoot herself (and the country) in the foot before she even gets close to being in the Treasury? Fluff em up, get them on side.
yeah he's badly misread the electorate 😉
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1747751843453604071?t=CpNiynEuXMUaTJN6ZE3_HQ&s=19
Difficult to know whether it is down to anything he has done really though isn't it (unless you include keeping your head down and u turning on loads of things). A lot of people don't know much about him but just know they don't want the Tories anymore and Labour are the other party.
And come polling day how many of that 12% of Reform voters will actually vote Tory?
suppose she could…
Tell the truth rather than maintain and repeat neoliberal/thatcherite myths and lies?
What about trickle down economics....its been a while since a politician has talked about that.
yeah he’s badly misread the electorate
No, lying to the electorate can be hugely beneficial for a party leader. Who has suggested otherwise?
Look how successful Thatcher was in not only winning elections and but also fundamentally changing society.
It is much easier to sell myths that people already believe.
yeah he’s badly misread the electorate 😉
If you zoom out a bit and look beyond individual polls you'll see support for the Tories has actually been pretty steady since Sunak took over. Labour have been slightly losing support over the same time period, and everyone else looks more or less the same.
https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/
The only party that has had any significant shift has been Reform which has almost doubled it's support in the last six months. It's difficult to see exactly where this increased support has come from though.
And come polling day how many of that 12% of Reform voters will actually vote Tory?
according to yougov up to 1/3rd of the reform vote , the other 1/3rd either loyal reform & final 1/3rd wont vote
(and i reckon tice will pocket the cash and not stand the candidates like last time)
https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1747962898134040980?t=yjHQ29g9KrOtooHODO4jkw&s=19
Oh where have we seen that before?
Labour Truss mash-up
They're all obsessed with growth through tax cuts at the wealthy end.
It's insane.
The answer is staring them in the face - spend and fix society. Then watch the growth come on line, and then use tax to control inflation.
It’s insane.
I'm trying very hard not to pay much attention. But if I was paying attention then it would be one of the most depressing things I've ever seen or heard from a politician in the UK. It would appear that Labour have been completely captured by the corporate establishment. Reeves is the most tory politician I've ever seen in the Labour party, certainly much more than Blair. We can only hope that after the election their majority will be large enough to give Labour MPs the leverage they need to resist this lunatic Trussonomics fringe.
resist this lunatic Trussonomics fringe.
But it's not some fringe backbenchers, if Labour win she'll be the Chancellor, picked by the PM to enact their joint vision.
I do believe that a rebellion within the PLP is likely, especially if the Labour's majority is huge.
What is suppressing any chance of that currently happening (apart from the ceasefire vote) is being in opposition. A small Labour majority would also have a similar effect.
Obviously the New Labour on steroids team now in charge know the risks of that happening which is why they have put so much incredible effort into interfering with constituency selection processes - they need fully compliant Labour MPs in the Commons.
But it’s not some fringe backbenchers
No the backbenchers are still mostly slightly left of centre Keynesians who believe in public services and tax and spend. It's the shadow cabinet with the likes of Reeves and Streeting who appear to be corporate shills regurgitating the trickle down fantasies of Truss and the Tufton St lobby. We can only hope that once in power the PLP will force Reeves to rememeber which party she's in.
Usual cherry picking of the actual statements, Reeves stated that she'd like to see tax cuts for workers across the spectrum, via the removal of the freeze on the rates for the 20/40/45% tax rates kicking in. No promises were made, just a statement on, if it was possible, increasing these to match inflation would be seen as a positive, and where funding was available, focused on the lower end, i.e. the 20% and 40% rates more than the 45% rate.
Usual cherry picking of the actual statements
Well presumably you can read the whole article in the Daily Telegraph but surely this comment is important to highlight:
"My instinct is to have lower taxes".
It is obviously important because it says a lot about the next Chancellor of the Exchequer. It says that her attitude to taxation is very similar to that of Tories such as Margret Thatcher and Liz Truss.
If the comment is not particularly notable Reeves would not have felt the need to make it.
Reeves was very clearly telling Daily Telegraph readers what sort of Chancellor she will be, why should we ignore it? Because that comment was only for Daily Telegraph readers?
Her instinct is for lower taxes, but against the tax rates, which have been frozen, meaning in the next few years millions more will fall into these rates and pay more tax and effectively take less home.
If she'd started talking about lowering inheritance tax, corporation tax or other taxes that benefit the rich more than the working classes then it would be worthy of headlines.
If/when Labour do get in at the next election, what do people here think would actually change in the UK? Given that the real issues are things like poverty, the growing housing crisis, a rapidly declining NHS, collapsing public services, local authorities going bankrupt and our justice system failing society, what do you think would improve, if at all? <br /><br />And how long before we're back to the real tory party ruling again?
what do people here think would actually change in the UK?
Nothing will fundamentally change. We'll still have a govt which serves the top 1% in our society and which protects the wealth of asset owners by continuing the unnecessary policy of austerity based on completely arbitrary fiscal rules and limits. At the very most we can expect a less hostile approach to funding of the NHS, schools and other frontline services via local authorities. I would also expect industrial disputes with doctors et al to be quickly resolved. Worst case scenario is Reeves continues with her Trussite fantasies and doubles down on austerity following stagnant economic growth resulting from no public spending. In that case the only thing that will change is the party managing the cluster**** and the tories will be back in 4-5 years.
We can only hope that once in power the PLP will force Reeves to rememeber which party she’s in.
The PLP where all the new candidates are being chosen for loyalty to the supreme commander?
I think that is hopeful.
The PLP where all the new candidates are being chosen for loyalty to the supreme commander?
I think that is hopeful.
I doubt it. My local labour candidate (who's pretty much a shoe-in to win) largely toes the party line and can be seen as a loyalist to the leadership, but I know for a fact he's not a conservative. He's by no means a radical, but with a long history in local govt he's not going to stand for continued Trussite austerity alongside tax cuts for the rich. I reckon the vast majority of the PLP are in the same bracket. Reeves is going to have quite a fight on her hands if she persists with this nonsense.
This is IMO a very good sign - Starmer attacking over culture wars. Very well selected issues as well - NT and RNLI - both beloved of tory voters / the middle classes From the Grauniad<br /><br />
More reaction to the government’s major setback on the Rwanda offshore immigration policy to come. But first, my colleagues Pippa Crerar and Patrick Butler have this great piece on Labour leader Keir Starmer’s evolving strategy – and willingness to fight. Read the full piece below.
<br />In the coffee break after Keir Starmer’s speech on civil society on Monday, the mood among charity leaders was positive. Perhaps most of all they liked his defence of the National Trust and RNLI, beloved national charities that have, over the years, been demonised and demeaned by the right.
“It’s come to something when the Tories are at war with the National Trust,” the Labour leader had told them. “That’s what happens when politics of self-preservation prevail over commitment to service.”
His speech was also symbolic of a broader strategy from Starmer, who has been looking for opportunities to flip the narrative and show that he is not just ducking fights with the Tories to deny them electoral dividing lines, as some of his critics suggest.
This same strategy was on display earlier this month when he told reporters he was “up for the fight” of defending the “nanny state” as he announced plans to improve child health under a Labour government, including supervised toothbrushing in schools.
He also used similar language when it comes to government investment in green energy…
"If they want that fight on borrow to invest, I'm absolutely up for that."
Starmer attacking over culture wars
I think it's a line of attack they need to keep banging
I don't see defending the national trust and the RNLI, as fighting back against the culture wars.
Now we have Streeting again talking utter bobbins about the NHS. He is just a paid shill for american private healthcare interests. the last thing the NHS needs is another reform unless its to get rid of the fake market bollox. Reform takes away energy and time from care. Yes reform might be needed but it needs to be as a part of a long term well thought thru plan and will require more money
I think there are times when the Labour party is led too heavily into nostalgia. It would be the easiest thing in the world to go into the next general election just saying ‘worst crisis in NHS history’, ‘you can’t trust the Tories on the NHS’, ‘you’ve got 24 hours to save the NHS’ and, by the way, here’s a nice sepia film of Nye Bevan.<br />When the Sun’s Harry Cole put it to Streeting that that was exactly how Labour campaigned on the NHS in elections, Streeting replied:
<br />Well, we haven’t done very well in the last four, so I’m not planning to repeat those mistakes.<br />Streeting also restated an argument that he has previously made as shadow health secretary, saying that what the NHS needed most was reform, not extra money.
<br />You can’t just keep on pouring ever-increasing amounts of money into a leaky bucket, you’ve got to deal with the bucket itself.<br />And on the topic of NHS funding, he told the Sun:
<br />It’s not right to keep on asking people on low to middle incomes to pay high taxes when they’re struggling. And it’s not right that they don’t get much for the money they are putting in.
Taxes in the UK remain low and if you don't want to tax low and middle income earners then you tax high incomes - who are very low taxed in comparison to EU countries and stop companies avoiding tax
I don’t see defending the national trust and the RNLI, as fighting back against the culture wars.
Both organisations have been attacked by the right for being "too woke" with a racist takeover of the NT attempted and attempts that failed to stop folk supporting the RNLI because they saved folk from drowning in the channel
Both sets of attacks are part of the "culture wars" IMO
Now we have Streeting again talking utter bobbins about the NHS.
So what he's actually saying is that we spend money on bed blocking because there's no properly funded social care system, we pay too much on recruitment and locum fees because there aren't sufficient trained clinical staff, and they're not paid well enough to be retained, we paid too much to management consultants (standard opposition stuff), and some stuff about savings that could be made through bulk buying...
None of that seems, on the face of it, anything other than standard "we can do better than that lot" opposition electioneering tub-thumping. Where's the "utter bobbins"?
its all about paying back his paymasters in private healthcare and sorting those things require more money and do not require reorganisation
Streeting has made it clear that the "reorganization" he wants is to increase privitisation
Private providers in the NHS have always been there, and will always be there. A Labour government won't mean an end to that. What duties those private providers are carrying out, who they are, and on what cost basis can all be reformed... some of it needs to be. The big question for me is... will more people be directly employed by the NHS in 5 years time if Labour get in, or fewer people? And more importantly, can the decline in services, waiting times, trust and satisfaction be reversed? Any path to achieve that arguably means more money and reform in Social Care than the NHS itself... that's the nettle to grasp... somehow.