Forum menu
I think mostly I’m grasping at straws to explain what on the surface looks inexplicable.
I think your explanation is a good. Labour are trying to ensure they keep everyone happy so they don't ruin their chances when it comes to the election and load of people revert to Tory votes because they have never felt happy voting Labour.
I don't think it's just an election plan either... they aim to govern for "everyone" as well I strongly suspect... for example heavily investing in the switch to renewables, without telling the private sector (and those that revere/value it) that there is no place for them in that industry. Ideologues won't be any happier after the election than before... I don't think this is a bait and switch... it's more public investment and encouraging private investment. I think they mean what they say.
I think they mean what they say.
If that’s true there’s no point in voting for them. You’re persuading me!
LOL!
You don't want more public investment?
The one single thing we have all learnt about Sir Keir Starmer since he became leader of the Labour Party is that he never says what he means.
We only know what he is saying this week.
You don’t want more public investment?
Where is it coming from and how is it being spent?
An obvious example is the tee side debacle. Are you in favour of the state taking all the risk and private companies pocketing all the cash?
How is this private investment being encouraged and how is it being checked to ensure we are getting value for money from it. Something which is always problematic with the centrist ideologues since they generally buy into the free market myth.
An obvious example is the tee side debacle.
Are we blaming Keir Starmer for that now?
How both the government and private sector invest, and who profits from it, is obviously key... the absolute values invested or spent are not all that matters (as events of recent years, with VIP lanes and £1 land purchases make very clear).
You don’t want more public investment?
What public investment? If you take Reeves at her word there won't be any. I'm operating on the assumption/hope that her word is bollocks and designed only for electioneering purposes. If they mean what they say though as you suggest then balanced budgets and further cuts in public spending will be the order of the day.
If you take Reeves at her word there won’t be any.
That isn't what has been said.
Increases in investment and increases in day to day spending are both proposed. The former through "borrowing" (don't Rone, we know what's meant by that) and the later paired with tax changes.
We're looping again now.
That isn’t what has been said.
I can't keep up TBH. Reeves comes out with a random new announcement every day and Starmer doesn't seem to have a clue what his economic policies are other than 'ask Rachel'. Honestly if you look at what Reeves says and didn't know it was her you'd be forgiven for thinking it was Kwasi Kwarteng. Quite frankly labour's economic policies are all over the place, and the messaging is even worse. Even the most economically ignorant voters can work out that more investment doesn't go with balanced budgets and no tax rises.
That isn’t what has been said.
Reeves says fiscal rules sit above eveything.
Heard her on LBC.
She garbled her words on borrowing for investment. She cannot articulate what you think she is saying.
It's bullshit Kelvin. They absolutely do not know what to say or offer up because they're terrified of saying anything remotely progressive, which means they make stuff up to suit.
And what's worse is - fiscal rules don't mean anything. It means nothing.
For what it's worth borrowing for investment is shit ten times over. You know they don't borrow to spend and that terminology is damaging the fabric of what needs to be done.
Like I say - have a plan - tell the truth.
The fact none of us can tell you exactly what's going off - tells you everything.
But Kelvin, you do an awful good job of trying to pull the crumbs from an offering of nothing.
Starmer and Reeves have done nothing but disappoint - the fact you can somehow manage to see catalyst of hope every single time Reeves puts the boot in on another possible idea - is beyond me.
None of this is necessary and I really hope that Labour get a good kicking in the likes of Streeting's constituency. I really do because they don't actually deserve the support.
Are we blaming Keir Starmer for that now?
wtf are you on about?
I know its hard being a supporter of someone almost as much of a uturning liar as Sunak but you could at least try.
Perhaps best to resort to the "a vote for anyone but the glorious leader is a vote for tories".
The former through “borrowing” (don’t Rone, we know what’s meant by that) and the later paired with tax changes.
Clearly a lot of people don't though.
They still believe the private sector funds the government - hence my total disdain of that wording. But I know you know what it means.
You have to absolutely create a big deficit to fill a state hole this big - there is no way around it. The wealthy have sucked too much money out of everything. No point lying about it.
Or just accept the current decay.
Just tell the public they're not on the hook for the 'debt.' And they're not.
How much of a problem is governmet debt versus the criticial future of our environment - it shouldn't even need saying. Basic stuff. But that's where Labour have gone. From earlier - even John Mcternan lays it out clearly!
I’m operating on the assumption/hope that her word is bollocks and designed only for electioneering purposes.
IMO that is very much a possibility, especially when faced with an overwhelming crisis which considering the state of the economy they will inherit is a perfectly possible scenario.
It is worth remembering that Gordon Brown did not hesitate for a moment to pump billions into UK banks despite his previous commitment to neoliberalism and deregulation.
Furthermore I am not sure why some people seem to assume that Keir Starmer is only lying when he is saying something vaguely left-wing and always telling the truth when giving his approval for right-wing Tory policies.
The only thing that is certain about Starmer is that he is a persistent liar. No one can be sure what his policies will be when he is PM beyond that they will be geared towards what best benefits him. Which of course includes, among other things, history remembering him kindly.
Not long to wait to find out now - more than likely 3 or 4 months.
It is worth remembering that Gordon Brown did not hesitate for a moment to pump billions into UK banks despite his previous commitment to neoliberalism and deregulation
That's one and the same though isn't it? (And yes the banking system of course needed saving.)
State support for the financial system - tally ho!
I don't think Reeves would have a problem with that direction either.
Furthermore I am not sure why some people seem to assume that Keir Starmer is only lying when he is saying something vaguely left-wing and always telling the truth when giving his approval for right-wing Tory policies.
Because that's been the direction of travel.
Closet tree-hugger? Lol.
I do agree there are a lot of wait and sees, but they're going to want to retain power and that means keeping with the establishment line.
That’s one and the same though isn’t it?
Only because neoliberalism doesn't work - the market is not always right. Even the exponents of the failed theory know that.
But pumping billions into banking was definitely at odds with the stated policies of neoliberalism.
I do agree there are a lot of wait and sees, but they’re going to want to retain power and that means keeping with the establishment line.
I think it is fair to say that my expectations are rather low.
But I would not be particularly surprised if he was either less right-wing than he currently appears to be, or in fact even more right-wing. Nothing about Starmer surprises me.
especially when faced with an overwhelming crisis which considering the state of the economy they will inherit is a perfectly possible scenario.
I'll go as far as making a prediction that when they enter govt, within weeks they'll hold an emergency budget on the grounds that the state of the economy and public services are much worse than they thought and they'll throw out all the austerity stuff in favour of some form of public sector bailout. In reality they'll copy what Biden has done, but they'll use the crisis narrative (bankrupt councils for example) to justify it.
But pumping billions into banking was definitely at odds with the stated policies of neoliberalism.
But not with how it is consistently practiced around the world.
Because that’s been the direction of travel.
That got me thinking about the direction of travel and whether it was always from left to right.
There certainly seems to be a persistent pattern..... the Tories announce a reactionary right-wing policy, Starmer and his team denounce the policy and castigate the Tories for it, a little while later Starmer quietly reassures Tory voters that a Labour government won't reverse the policy, and repeat.
It is as if Starmer and his front bench are so piss-poor and ineffective in opposing right-wing Tory policies that they can't even convince themselves that they are right, never mind the electorate.
The only example I can think of Starmer moving in the opposite right to left direction was during the Labour leadership contest - there he went in a very short space of time from being a fairly right-wing centrist member of the Labour Party to a radical lefty espousing the "moral case for socialism".
Yep, you simply can't trust him. Very likely to be the Tory attack line and they have plenty of examples to use.
It is as if Starmer and his front bench are so piss-poor and ineffective in opposing right-wing Tory policies that they can’t even convince themselves that they are right, never mind the electorate.
Take-the-bait politics for me.
The thing that frustrates me over and over - is it shouldn't be hard to argue the Tories out of existence! Look at the damage! But when your arguments are similar to theirs - its totally counter-intuitive to be on the opposite side.
Anyway I feel the pain on this Sheffield Professor's sound bite - dealing with fiscal rules and headroom as totally ludicrous concept.
https://twitter.com/UKandEU/status/1752656948984467948?s=20
Or an alternate viewpoint which I'm sure you lot won't accept is that by pushing the Tories further right it allows Starmer and Labour to cover more of the electorate and become a government. Labour has always had the problem that it doesn't appeal to enough people, hence a majority Tory governments. You can be ideologically pure or you can be a party of government. Anyway we've been around and around these arguments and frankly Starmer and Labour high commend don't care about voters on the far left of the party, they are in a tiny minority and shifting policy to appease them will alienate a large proportion of the electorate. To be electable Labour need to be centrist with a whiff of left leaning. If that doesn't work for you vote for the electable left wing party of your choice to be in government, oh wait there aren't any.
You don't need to argue the Tories out of existence, you just need for their voters to get so dismayed that they don't turn out.
The main reason that we don't have more Labour governments is mostly because the Lib Dems and Greens either don't understand the implications of a first past the post system or don't care, and repeatedly split the left wing vote to the detriment of all.
Or an alternate viewpoint which I’m sure you lot won’t accept is that by pushing the Tories further right it allows Starmer and Labour to cover more of the electorate
Aside from it doesnt achieve this though does it? It results in the centre right and hard right being represented but those on the left not having representation. At some point you have to chose policies which suits one group but not the other.
Obviously the centre right having ****ed up the country and their own party now want labour as compensation for the party loss but want to keep the same policies ****ed the country rather than learning from their mistakes.
You can be ideologically pure or you can be a party of government
BINGO! Sadly though the tories have demonstrated this to be nonsense.
To be electable Labour need to be centrist with a whiff of left leaning
This only works since the left are less ideological pure that the centrists and are willing to compromise.
If labour go as hard right to appeal to people like you then the left may chose otherwise.
If that doesn’t work for you vote for the electable left wing party of your choice to be in government, oh wait there aren’t any.
Double BINGO. The cry of the centrist extremist who is utterly incapable of any compromise and is deluded into thinking they are the majority.
Willing to compromise...
To be electable Labour need to be centrist with a whiff of left leaning.
But what are they left leaning on? It just seems to be "we'll carry on doing everything the Tories are doing but more boringly. So we'll still paint over the kids murals at the asylum seeker processing centre, but we'll do it sensibly rather than gleefully".
Which Labour politician has indicated that they agreed to... "paint over the kids murals at the asylum seeker processing centre"... or is this more blaming Labour for things a Tory government have done (and Labour opposed)?
can be ideologically pure or you can be a party of government
I love this one.
What's more ideologically pure they following the failed status quo?
I'm sorry this is a ridiculous notion that someone started somewhere without being aware of our current useless and failed ideology of choice - which Starmer wants to jump in bed with.
It's not in the least bit pragmatic because it's delivered awful results by just about every metric going.
Also the idea that the Centre must be the sensible position is for the birds. Just because it happens to sit between two points doesn't make it somehow about right if the two points themselves are bad!
Willing to compromise…
Yes.
You know by voting for the centre right new labour and also, under Corbyn, having centre right mps in the shadow cabinet until they threw a hissy fit, being unable to compromise their ideological beliefs.
I know its hard for ideologues like yourself but try and think about the last time those on the right of labour made a compromise.
To Labour I mean and not the tories/right wing rags.
Oh, yes... plenty of people on the left in Labour compromising all the time... I just found that phrase amusing in the context of this ranty thread...
Good dissection of Labours u-turn on bonuses by Politics Joe, I hope someone has tied a rope to Reeve's ankles as she is in danger of completely disappearing up the bankers arses
Centrists = Conservatism without the screaming.
Take a look how bad Conservatism has performed across the country. It leads to devastatingly poor outcomes.
So many elements that they use to measure how successful the economy is working - flawed and built on rickety logic. With little evidence to support it.
Inflation target of 2% - made up.
Inflation control by interest rate adjustment - virtually no evidence, unless you kill an economy.
State spending always causes inflation but private spending doesn't - bollocks.
The private sector funds the state - abject nonsense.
Growth by tax cuts - how come we aren't growing then?
Don't burden our children with the national debt - doesn't happen, It rolls over for the government deal with.
There is no money left - oh right.
I mean come on.
It's a just an ever lasting list of absolute back to front crap that has been repeated by successive governments to our detriment that Starmer is also selling us
Its like shooting fish in a barrel, nearly all the usual suspects biting after one post.
Theres nothing idealogical pure about centrists and
This only works since the left are less ideological pure that the centrists and are willing to compromise.
Genuine LOLs you really dont live in the real world do you?
The cry of the centrist extremist who is utterly incapable of any compromise and is deluded into thinking they are the majority.
Did you really type that with a straight face, centrists by the very definition are in the centre, not the extremes of politics, and have you ever heard of a bell curve? This thread is like arguing with Covid deniers and 5G nuts. Chemtrails anyone?
Yep, you simply can’t trust him. Very likely to be the Tory attack line and they have plenty of examples to use.
For sure but I reckon that the Tories have been keeping their powder dry for when the general election is on full swing for this :
But some Labour Party insiders have reservations about this approach, with one telling Sky News: "If your record involves as many controversies as Keir Starmer, it's probably not great political strategy to draw attention to it."
Senior Tory sources say they believe Sir Keir's past is a vulnerability they can exploit, having identified a number of examples they think will change the public's view of the Labour leader.
"There's a lot of material out there," a senior Conservative source explains.
Depending on what the Tories dig up and how it is presented that could imo have a devastating effect on how well Labour does in the general election.
Labour benefits hugely from the fact that the electorate knows very little about Starmer and are fairly indifferent towards him - they mostly know that he is not a Tory politician and but not much else.
If the Tories correctly paint him as untrustworthy and effectively point out that not every decision the Crown Prosecution Service made under his watch was great, which would obviously undermine his judgement skills, it could cause a serious upset for Labour.
centrists by the very definition are in the centre, not the extremes of politics
No they are not. Centrists are right-wingers who claim to be middle-of-the-road moderates. They are certainly intolerant and extreme - you probably are probably represent an excellent example.
You certainly sound pretty extreme in your intolerance of those who are unhappy about Labour aping the Tories. In your latest outburst, for example, you are making a comparison between people who don't totally agree with you and, quote, "Covid deniers and 5G nuts".
Centrists = Conservatism without the screaming.
It's such a blinkered and binary way of looking at things, comparing exteme left and extreme right.
No they are not. Centrists are right-wingers who claim to be middle-of-the-road moderates.
Abject nonsence.
The political compass is a slightly more usefull tool, but still very narrow in scope if you are forced to put only one dot on the chart.
In reality you should be asked a thousand different questions, with a dot for each, so you'd end up with more of a scatter graph/heat map.
For example I'd describe myself as fairly centrist, but that doesn't paint the full picture, I'd probably end up with something like this:
(picture for illustration purposes only, it's not accurate, I knocked it up in 30 seconds)
Starmer and Labour high commend don’t care about voters on the far left of the party
Those of us on the left know this and are far from worrying about it. What we do want though is for labour to serve the needs of working people rather than the top few percent. I think most of us would be fine with that, but it’s a long way from where labour currently are.
It’s such a blinkered and binary way of looking at things, comparing exteme left and extreme right.
Lol we didn't invent the system. And neither would I call it extreme necessarily when presented as the way you have.
Centrists accept Neoliberal framing - all the evidence you need is out there in Starmer's wishy washy way of offering up conservative policy.
I mean, we are walking right into trickle-down - again but within a Labour presentation.
So it's okay apparently.
What we do want though is for labour to serve the needs of working people
Well that doesnt appear to be what working people (as most voters fit in this category) want from Labour based on the polls, at least not your idea of helping working people. And if Labour doesnt represent your views go vote for a party that does, oh yeah been there before. Might as well whine that you want the Tories to care about anybody other than themselves but that ain't happening either.
They are certainly intolerant and extreme – you probably are probably represent an excellent example.
Lets not start flinging insults and getting personal, even if that does seem to be a left wing trait. FWIW each time ive done the moral compass thing Ive come out middle bottom left, yes surprised me but there you are.
Lol we didn’t invent the system
Maybe not but you all seem very keen to define other people and other them. Its almost like the left are scared of the centrists so demonise them even more than the right.
Maybe not but you all seem very keen to define other people and other them. Its almost like the left are scared of the centrists so demonise them even more than the right.
The urge to pigeonhole peoples entire political view by some is frustrating... it's as if you are not Corbyn, then you automaticaly must be Darth Vader.
Lets not start flinging insults and getting personal, even if that does seem to be a left wing trait.
Start?
You:
This thread is like arguing with Covid deniers and 5G nuts. Chemtrails anyone?
So that wasn't intended as an insult? Making a comparison between those who have a different point of view to you on this thread with "Covid deniers and 5G nuts" was perfectly reasonable?
*Centrist is a hypocrite shocker*
This thread is like arguing with Covid deniers and 5G nuts. Chemtrails anyone?
Wow amazing.
I think we do pretty well here actually.
Back on track as Binners likes to say:
Rachel Reeves "I think income taxes are too high on working people. can't make any promises about reducing income tax. " Etc.
Also Reeves "we're going to keep corp tax at 25%."
It's just one big churn of bullshit.