Forum menu
I don't ever want to see Andy Burnham leading anything. His dog-whistle racism during covid shows him for what he really is; a populist who would pander to whoever he felt it necessary, to gain power. Nasty little man.
Guardian comments in melt down.
This one hasn't gone down well with his usual cavalry.
Some jokers saying he has to get approval from the Tories before he goes through with something.
I fear Labour won't learn a whole lot from this situation. But they could have passed the peak now with support.
The absolute daft thing is they could still have won an election with this one.
the stuff he has done as mayor of Manchester
Fail to deliver and blame Westminster (apart from buses)?
His dog-whistle racism.....
Still, at least he has called for a far-right racist government to stop murdering Arabs, which is more than the current leader of the Labour Party has done. So in that respect at least he represents an improvement.
THEGUARDIAN.COM
Chief Political prick of the Guardian doing a fine job of justifying the desperate need to get the markets and big business on side because because ... bond vigilantes.
You know what - these institutions will be just fine and carry on creaming money into bigger pots whilst everything else can just suck up the mess.
What a Tory arse Rawnsley is.
https://www.itv.com/news/2024-02-05/british-muslim-support-for-labour-halves-according-to-new-poll
Westminster Voting Intentions (Survation/LMN Poll):
Labour: 43% (-43)
Conservative: 6% (-4)
Liberal Democrat: 6% (+5)
SNP: 3% (+1)
Green: 10% (+9)
Other: 4% (+4)
Undecided: 23% (N/A)
I am surprised that there is not greater support for the LibDems who have strongly supported the call for a ceasefire, and their foreign affairs spokesperson is half Palestinian with close family in Gaza and has obviously been very vocal.
It is excellent news for the Green Party though.
Had to read that twice to get the measure.
I suppose eventually these messed up Labour decisions have to backfire somewhere.
while Im not surprised that theres been an negative response among muslims to Labour backing Israel
the poll above has been manipulated by comparing undecided to decided voters, which is not how polls are normally done
the correct figures look like this
LAB: 60% (-26)
GRN: 14% (+13)
LDM: 9% (+8)
CON: 8% (-2)
SNP: 4% (+2)
I am not sure that the "corrected" figures are any less damning, they show a huge, and I suspect more realistic, level of support for the Greens, and a much healthier, and again probably more realistic, level of support for the LibDems.
60% is obviously better than 43% for Labour but it is still a massive drop from 86% in 2019.
And the 24% undecided Muslim former Labour voters does not look good at all for Labour - I suspect that they are mostly undecided because they can't make their minds up whether to vote Green, LibDem, or Independent.
Which is also exactly where I am personally.
It looks like Starmer's slow motion U-turn on his green pledge might now be turning into a 360° turn:
Either Rachel Reeves and Keir Starmer aren't singing from the same hymn sheets and a spilt has developed between them or Starmer is just being his usual flip-flopping self.
Bearing in that Starmer is likely to be Prime Minister in 3 months time neither scenarios inspire confidence.
The green pledge is not only popular but it also one of the few clear policies which Labour has. And yet Starmer has nevertheless managed to take the pledge out of the green pledge before apparently now recommitting and muddling up the whole issue.
Among the many qualities required to be an effective prime minister is an ability to be decisive. Starmer clearly lacks this as he often reacts to events several days after they have occurred.
Less of a problem when you are leader of the opposition and everyone is expecting the government to act decisively but obviously a huge problem when you are prime minister.
Hopefully for him Morgan McSweeney will learn to pull Starmer's strings a little quicker when he becomes prime minister and Thunderbirds are go.
Good news. I get trying to switch policy from targets on spending to targets on results, but it was sending out all the wrong signals as regards how serious their government would be as regards the state’s role in the rapid switch to renewables.
Anyway, where is Miliband…?
They just need to not be cowardly and fight back every time the Tories attack them for it.
We need this stuff. If it's doable - it's affordable. The only argument the Tories will have will be the national debt - **** em, you want growth the national 'debt' will expand and will never be a problem. It will simply roll over and be adjusted with Q//E or reserve swaps.
Reeves needs to drop her stupid adherence to Conservative economics - baseless and regressive.
All the batshit stuff the Tories do but at least they don't care and just do it!
Lmfao looks he his going to confirm the 28bn green plan is gone - tomorrow, according the latest guardian article.
Is that 720 degrees spin?
What's the news for next week - Wes Streeting is going to do the Dental survey himself to *save* money?
Total weasels
Awful timing for that announcement, just as they had Rishi on the ropes for his comments in PMQs about U turns, and they take the heat off him with another U turn. You know what the press are going to focus on tomorrow.
Starmer needs to fight fire with fire and have a list of Tory U turns, failed policies and expensive mistakes ready to throw back at him.
To be fair to Starmer, I think his response to Sunaks transphobic comments was on point.. just shocked and incredulous.
Thats what I'd like to see more of in the commons, rather than the baying mob that we often get, PMQ's often sounds more like when a rival bunch of football hooligans accidentally meet each other in the wrong pub.
It's totally unprofessional and a national embarrassment to think that these are MP's in high office.
Lmfao looks he his going to confirm the 28bn green plan is gone – tomorrow, according the latest guardian article.
It seems like it. It does rather look like Labour needs to put it's best tory clothes on to get elected. Yay! Or how very depressing.
Earlier this week to Times radio Kier Starmer said "We're going to need investment that's where the 28 Billion comes in, that investment that's desperately needed for that mission, and i've been unwavering in that mission"
So less than 36 hours ago he was unwavering?, today it's dumped?.
The guy is a ****ing joke, England you're welcome to the prick.
So less than 36 hours ago he was unwavering?, today it’s dumped?.
The sad thing is the tories will then attack him for u turning anyway. So its a double loss for him and a double win for the tories.
Lmfao looks he his going to confirm the 28bn green plan is gone – tomorrow, according the latest guardian article.
After what he said yesterday I think this is evidence that Starmer is not really in control of Labour's economic policies - he is very unlikely to have changed his mind on such an important Labour policy so quickly.
These decisions are probably being made Rachel Reeves and Starmer presumably hadn't cleared it with her when he recommitted Labour to the £28bn green pledge yesterday.
Either that or yesterday Starmer was deliberately trying to assert his authority over Reeves by publicly claiming that the £28bn green pledge had not been ditched, and yet failed because Reeves perhaps managed to get Morgan McSweeney and possibly David Evans to back her and put pressure on Starmer.
I have long thought that Starmer treats his role as leader of the Labour Party as a lawyer under the instruction of their client. In this case the client being the "Labour Together" faction.
It would certainly explain why he appears to have no genuine commitment to anything and why he will shamelessly preform spectacular U-turns with such apparent ease.
Labour policies have become nothing more than a guessing game.
own goal on the £28bn pledge, no matter how much Tories attacked them on it they could stop say it's investing in the country
was always dangerous tying themselves to a figure
the more sensible stance theyve gone to now was the one they should have had
it does highlight that labour think theyre most vulnerable on economic credibility
was always dangerous tying themselves to a figure
Since becoming leader Starmer's strategy appears to have been based on having very few policies and not tying himself to anything.
There was a lot of disquiet about this strategy and the most common criticism from voters was that they didn't know where Labour stood in terms of policies.
I had assumed the clear and unequivocal £28bn green pledge was an attempt to address that issue, and it was certainly very popular with voters. And yet Starmer still managed to somehow screw that up. Or at least it was screwed up for him.
The sad thing is the tories will then attack him for u turning anyway. So its a double loss for him and a double win for the tories.
Exactly - exactly.
This has been my point since the start. The Tories will always attack labour.
Labour just need get on with the job of fixing all the Tory pain. Let them attack - it won't matter because if Labour do some good things, people will see a huge uptick.
Then they will just have to defend the spending...
You know 28bn is nothing. It is literally nothing. It will make not a jot of difference to your taxes or borrowing. And even if 28bn goes on the national debt they could just talk up Q/E.
330bn-ish was spent during COVID. And aside from inflation due to supply shocks, it's reckoned spending only accounted for 3% of the total inflation. No taxes were involved.
That current big hole in the state is begging to be fixed.
You want better things? (god help us we need it) it's time to jack up the spending.
There is literally no other route to growth or investment.
But here we have Starmer the coward that he is can't make an argument for the thing that is asking for money - because of a balance sheet.
That's all it comes down to. A balance sheet - no real debt at all.
Tory macro-economic decisions have destroyed the fabric of our society - all the evidence you need is out there and Starmer can't find an argument to defend this position? Worse than this Tory narrative is part of the Labour argument too now. A fictional, regurgitated concept that the government can't create money to spend (when it currently does this - day in day out.) is controlling the debate.
Starmer even said so himself 4 years ago - not that it would matter...
This is going to be a tough election in which to vote.
I can’t vote Tory. A thoroughly reprehensible bunch who are almost pantomime villainous. 13 lost years for the country.
I can’t vote Labour. Despite 13 years of planning time, they still don’t know what to do and I am afraid that some of their policies are so radical and untested simply as a reaction to the last 13 years that we might repeat Truss’s impact on the country.
A vote for anybody else feels like a wasted vote since it really feels like a 1 horse race.
For the first time in my life I am faced with potentially not voting, despite a very firm belief that everybody should. It is such a democratic privilege.
It is a sad state of affairs that a spoiled ballot might be my only way of expressing that they are all unelectable.
I can’t vote Labour. Despite 13 years of planning time, they still don’t know what to do and I am afraid that some of their policies are so radical and untested simply as a reaction to the last 13 years that we might repeat Truss’s impact on the country.
I think a lot of us have missed those radical policies, can you tell us what they are as I would genuinely like to know and also wonder how I have missed them?
BBC News page. No irony intended?
Cowards. Relying almost purely (£6 billion of public money a year is bugger all) on private sector investment may well get us to carbon fuel free energy generation by 2030… but it’ll probably end up costing us all more… without the government leading with “its own money” we are at risk of private companies holding us to ransom (again) as they drag their heals and blackmail us for higher profits through billing and long term tax breaks in return for doing what we require of them.
And… where is Miliband?
As Chancellor, I will not shirk our responsibility to future generations. No dither, no delay. Labour will meet the challenge head on and seize the opportunities of the green transition. Let me tell you today what I will do as your Chancellor. I will invest in good jobs in the green industries of the future; giga-factories to build batteries for electric vehicles; a thriving hydrogen industry; offshore wind with turbines made in Britain; planting trees and building flood defences; keeping homes warm and getting energy bills down; good new jobs in communities throughout Britain.
In other words: protecting and strengthening our everyday economy. And to make this a reality, to unlock that potential, and protect our planet for future generations. I can announce today that I am committing the next Labour government to an additional £28bn of capital investment in our country’s green transition for each and every year of this decade. I will be a responsible Chancellor. I will be Britain’s first green Chancellor.
- Rachel Reeves 2021
Labour are definitely on a role.
Should have heard John Mcternan earlier. Ooof.
Politics has become about what you can't have or fix these days. I predict a low turn out in a G.E.
Despite its lead in the polls, Labour is allowing the Conservatives to impose their economic frame on the political debate.@johnmcternan on Keir Starmer's U-turn 👇
— UnHerd (@unherd) February 8, 2024
T.CO Here here.
This plan was clearly liked!
Despite its lead in the polls, Labour is allowing the Conservatives to impose their economic frame on the political debate.
Because it too hard for Starmer to argue that the Tories haven't managed the economy well.
Plus the Daily Mail wouldn't like it.
some of their policies are so radical and untested
You what now?
Because it too hard for Starmer to argue that the Tories haven’t managed the economy well.
Mate, politicians don't get anywhere by arguing things rationally. They get votes by manipulating sentiment.
Mate, politicians don’t get anywhere by arguing things rationally. They get votes by manipulating sentiment.
Ain't it the truth. I just wish there was a "Green-lite" party. Same overall progressive policies but without the PETA style anti-nuclear hysteria.
Having said that, Labour's announcement yesterday that they'll restore lifetime limits on pensions while adding a special exemption for doctors and teachers is hardly endearing me to them. It's nice to know that there's an official, formalised pecking order of "usefulness to society" and that those deemed pointless are taxed more heavily.
meanwhile (whilet watering down green pledge that was well telegraphed)
electoral calculus has this as a 390 seat lab majority
Ain’t it the truth. I just wish there was a “Green-lite” party. Same overall progressive policies but without the PETA style anti-nuclear hysteria.
If you want more green policies then vote Green. I promise you they won't win, so you won't have to worry about policies you don't like becoming a reality. A reasonable shift to the Greens will however give the new Labour government something to think about. Look at the influence UKIP had on the Tories. All this Tory rubbish will be forgotten in five years time and Labour will be chasing votes from every angle.
You know 28bn is nothing. It is literally nothing. It will make not a jot of difference to your taxes or borrowing. And even if 28bn goes on the national debt they could just talk up Q/E.
This. Plus he didn't even need to put a number on it. It didn't need a figure and the general public can't understand "billions" anyway.
All it needed was some commitment to investing in the energy sector. That would have given some confidence to manufacturers of heat pumps, solar panels etc, would have spelt out the way forward and started to embed the idea in people's minds.
Energy security, less reliance on expensive imported gas and by the way, fewer emissions too. Win win win.
He really is a dithery old mop. Flip flopping around, tiptoeing gently around policies. 🙄
Because it too hard for Starmer to argue that the Tories haven’t managed the economy well.
That comment might not have been intended to be taken too seriously.
After failed attempts to score open goals Starmer invariably seems to score own goals by agreeing that the Tories were right all along.
I am afraid that some of their policies are so radical and untested
Funniest thing ever posted on this thread. 😂
It's not so funny when it leads to the government we have now... it's also a sentiment shared by many voters... but hopefully now far fewer voters than a few years ago. Understanding that this sentiment is the one Labour needed to overcome to avoid another term in opposition is what's often missed by those saying Starmer can't hit an open goal. He's a boring goal keeper, not an exciting striker. But he's only part of the team... something that'll be more apparent if/when Labour get to form or be part of a government with him still in his post. Although much of that team is scarily quiet right now... "shut up and let the Tories lose" is unlikely to survive contact with an election campaign once we have a date.
Where is Miliband?
Does anyone see this is as a good move?
I'm seeing some weird hoops being jumped through. Surely the argument would be don't annouce it in the first place!
After all, government spending 'constrains' are exactly the same now as they were before Truss and when the Tories came to power. The same system is in place - nothing changed.
I mean, not once did Reeves or Starmer say we can't do this project becuase of the lack of resources. Which would be the only logical truth involved.
So why say it in the first place? Or was u-turning part of the plan.Is this 6D Chesss?
Or as I've heard is the plan to look more credible now because Labour look like going into a General Election they won't just spend money which talks to the 'Labour-spend-too-much-voter.'
It's a mess of logic.
we might repeat Truss’s impact on the country.
Yeah there was no real lasting impact. GDP as the main metric has been flat since about 2019.
It says a lot about people's understanding of finances that this is repeated over and over without thought.
Fact: your interest rates were on the way up, as were a lot of other countries at the same time by similar amounts due to BoE's damaging policy. Not Liz Truss.
We have also reached an era where when the £ drops a bit (then gets bought back up and totally recovers) that people see this as tanking the economy. Welcome to FIAT markets. It's by design.
Tanking the economy has been underway for years; and the Liz Truss situation really only shows how fragile and under-prepared the market place is to deal with 'bad-news.' Lucky for us the BoE stepped in and sorted the process out.
The larger economy however is in mess and has little to do with the Truss 'era'.
(I'm not defending Truss - she's an extreme but we need a bit more analysis because as I said at the time - it's likely to be used an illogical reason progressives can't spend because Oh - the Truss budget.)
Yeah there was no real lasting impact.
Yes there is.
See also Brexit.
Pretending otherwise because OTHER decisions (internal and external to the UK) also have an impact (collectively bigger than either) needs to stop.
No one thinks that everything we're going through is down to Truss. But she has damaged the economy and deeply worsened the financial situation many households find themselves in. Many people who otherwise would support the Conservatives are lost to them in the short term because of her term in office, how she went about things, and because Conservative MPs and members allowed her to be "our" Prime Minister at all.
So why say it in the first place? Or was u-turning part of the plan.Is this 6D Chesss?
Think they were sincere when they first announced it. Then Truss came along and presented them with the gold-plated opportunity to destroy the tories reputation for economic competence, but they couldn't hammer that home whilst also wanting to spend billions raised from borrowing (especially on 'green stuff'). Essentially they have sacrificed good policy for political advantage, which ironically damages their claim to competence and responsible governance.
Where is Miliband?
I read a report the other day saying he's been kept away from the media because - according to a Starmer insider - the thing that Miiband is best at is destroying poll leads.
I expect he has been told to be quiet.
I suspect so as well. I had thought that was directly linked to this green transition policy adjustment... but thinking about Dazh's comment... it could be as much to do with him being at the helm during a campaign that led to a general election loss, couldn't it.
which ironically damages their claim to competence and responsible governance
Well, it does with you, me, and the rest of us chattering away... how it actually goes down with voters more generally remains to be seen.
TWITTER.COM Yes there is.
What specifically are you talking about?
You do realise lots of people think she is responsible for the interest rate hikes?
(She wasn't around long enough to enact anything.)
Brexit is in no way comparable btw.
I'd be mostly happy just to lump all Tory policy together. Like I said GDP , their favourite metric has been flat for years. But to keep saying Truss tanked the economy is just ridiculous.
I've told you many times it says more about the state of pension fund investments and their wobbly methods than Liz Truss.
The economy should be able to survive shocks and the market should not be able to dictate the direction of government.
This is not an endorsement of Truss more a finger wave at the generalisation of economics - as what is determined by the markets.
"It’s a comforting story to tell, particularly for those who always opposed Truss and her attempts to shake up the economic status quo. The problem is, it’s not actually what happened. In fact, the collapse in the bond market that spelt doom for Truss and Kwarteng was down to a hitherto unnoticed beast lurking within the pensions industry: the leveraged Liability-Driven Investment (LDI) fund."
CAPX.CO This is what really happened late last September. While it’s politically convenient and conventional to blame the whole thing on Liz Truss, we should really be pointing the finger at foolish regulators and the Bank of England, both of whom failed to stop the industry’s leveraging short/long practice at the start, and to notice that the whole edifice had been tottering for some time. The Truss government had no reason to know of this emerging problem, and had not been warned by the Bank of England. What was bound to happen – mini budget or no mini budget – did happen