Forum menu
It is not a very good trap and very easy for Starmer to counter if he wanted to as polling suggests more people (55%) want improved public services over the (30%) who wanted tax cuts.
He continues to give the impression that he is happy with the stuff the tories are doing as he will just continue to do it, useless ****.
Of course. And while your attempts to change the narrative with your own repetition are admirable, Labour need to win an election, not win an argument. They won the argument in 2019.
The repetition is coming from the Labour Party. Not me.
2019 adhered to Labour's fiscal rules and were not in any way related to the things I'm talking about.
Labour winning an election based on Thatcherism - how dumb is that? Take your blinkers off.
Labour election co-ordinator Pat McFadden is asked how Labour's economic policy differs from the Tories. He is unable to list a single way in which they differ.
https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1765523307573514343?s=20
“Prospective MPs with lobbying day jobs are introducing their clients to senior Labour figures – and boasting about it.
Labour put lobbyists on the ballot……..and big business is the winner
https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1765640290990231858?t=ZDROZ9kLfJ2XTQZEaMyw2A&s=19
Spot on.
Backed into a corner.
https://twitter.com/DavidMcNab17/status/1765746667683221725?t=HATjuYxIv3TwVZjE1YvS0g&s=19
Labour election co-ordinator Pat McFadden is asked how Labour’s economic policy differs from the Tories. He is unable to list a single way in which they differ.
You're right he says absolutely nothing.
Just magically jumps to growth as an explanation 🤣
From the BBC
Labour now intends to pay for its NHS and school breakfast plans through future savings to public spending if it wins power, Rachel Reeves has said
Lmfao. Future savings ??
If only there existed a regular and solid mechanism for spending whatever is available to purchase - by the UK government...
What an absolute terrible mess Labour have got themselves in with their utterly stupid fiscal rules & pay-fors.
I said this would happen a while ago. That, if you try and play the pretend game you get caught out irrespective of talking about fully costed. Tories are much better at lying. So let's not go there
All this because they don't want to say how things are really financed.
Pretending that taxes fund spending when everything is in a two decade or so decline is just futile when there's also effectively no growth either.
If you can find the money now (which you can) then future 'borrowing' is horseshit of the highest Reeves order.
Just hit the button and fix the country! And you can have my vote too if you get this bit right.
Grace Blakeley is always a good listen but she still believes the private sector funds the state. If she could deal with that she would be unstoppable.
Why she doesn't end up on QT more is beyond me. She'd annihilate Kate Andrews.
She's properly articulate.
The repetition is coming from the Labour Party. Not me
Says the man who's written 6 out of the 8 most recent posts..........
Gordon Brown likens Starmer's plans for slimmed down cabinet to rule under Chairman Mao
"I doubt, as John said, if the other 20 members of the cabinet would be very happy if they were told that they were outside this inner circle."
Yeah but Sir Keir Starmer and no one else gets to choose who is in the cabinet so I can't see it being a huge problem for him.
No one who is aware of Starmer's behaviour since becoming Labour leader, the expulsions, the intolerance of any dissent, and the direct interference into the selection of Labour candidates, should be surprised by this proposal.
It has always been reasonable to assume that Starmer will govern the country in a very similar way to how he has ruled the Labour Party.
This country is completely ****ed, isn't it?
This country is completely ****, isn’t it?
Yup... the problem is there's no good party to vote for, so essentially you have to vote for the least worst option.
It's backwards.
I suppose if you think long term, then that should technially begin to steer the ship in a better direction.
Another potential U turn on its way. This time increased workers rights as the 'businesses' don't like the sound of them. Yep, that sounds like the Labour Party doesn't it.
What is he scared of this time, you would think increased workers rights would be an easy sell to the electorate being that the majority are workers.
As the Tories get worse Starmer seems use this as a function of his own logic too.
https://twitter.com/StephanieKelton/status/1767324541565411638?t=NJK9SXbFB2qDu8PnaxMtOQ&s=19
This daft man is obsessed with the word Reform ... 'cos that will fix a road, hospital and housing crisis.
Labour and Starmer aren’t popular – but the Tories are even less so
"Starmer has arguably become a drag on the Labour brand, with his own rating having been consistently lower than his party’s over most of the last year.
Looking more closely within the results shows that there is also notably less specific enthusiasm for Starmer than Labour. Among those intending to vote for Labour, 18% have a “very” favourable opinion of the party, while just 9% say the same of Starmer.
Since early 2021, almost without interruption, the public have generally said that Keir Starmer has been doing badly as Labour leader – by 52% to 33% in our most recent tracker poll. "
Shocking when you consider that for obvious reasons the right-wing press has treated Keir Starmer with kid gloves.
Shocking also is that Labour's "popularity" is so dependent on the current Tory government's unpopularity, something which by definition will undoubtedly change dramatically after this year's general election.
so essentially you have to vote for the least worst option.
this is all two party democratic politics ever
Shocking also is that Labour’s “popularity” is so dependent on the current Tory government’s unpopularity, something which by definition will undoubtedly change dramatically after this year’s general election.
Does beg the question - why has he gotten 'worse' with every step of the political trajectory?
I just think he's lucky to be able to behave like this in the face of such a mess.
Something......something.....growth .......something ......something....private investment .....something .........something......enterprise ........something.....something.......reform .............something....something........markets .....something....something.....business investment
Starmer hasn't a ****ing clue....Reeves hasn't a ****ing clue.......absolutely no ****ing mention of government investment.........but private sector investment will save the country...........we're going to get more ****ed.
Good article in todays guardian by Frances Ryan
Yabba dabba "wealth fund."
'cos we need private money apparently to do anything. Wow. Wonder how anything ever started then?
These total goons.
Good article in todays guardian by Frances Ryan
Yes I saw that. Can there be any more of an on-point argument?
Starmer hasn’t a * clue….Reeves hasn’t a * clue…….absolutely no * mention of government investment………but private sector investment will save the country………..we’re going to get more *.
It's totally ridiculous that they're relying on the decaying private sector to generate the growth for the private sector.
this is all two party democratic politics ever
Whilst true, I don't think the choice has ever been so bad. Tory 2023 or Tory 2010, take your pick.
He who shall not be named might have been a fud but at least he offered something genuinely different.
Starmer’s currently standing in a lava field with a good number of those who voted for him demanding to know why he hasn't brought the balance they craved.
I have to honest with people - Rachel Reeves.
Labour will not bail out bankrupt councils, the shadow chancellor has said.
https://news.sky.com/story/labour-will-not-bail-out-bankrupt-councils-rachel-reeves-says-13091728
Does anyone know how this differs from current Tory government policy?
Labour will not bail out bankrupt councils, the shadow chancellor has said.
https://news.sky.com/story/labour-will-not-bail-out-bankrupt-councils-rachel-reeves-says-13091728
Does anyone know how this differs from current Tory government policy?
Read the entire article and she does not say that at all anywhere within the quotes they apportion to her, maybe worthwhile reporting their inaccuracy via the website.
Does anyone know how this differs from current Tory government policy?
I heard some slippery centrist commentary yesterday explain that they don't really mean it.
I can't remember exactly the reasoning. It didn't make any sense.
Read the entire article
You won't be surprised to learn that I did of course read the whole article before providing a link to it.
This is what the article claims was Rachel Reeves response to the question concerning bankrupt council:
Ms Reeves said: "I'm under no illusions about the scale of the challenge that I will inherit if I become chancellor later this year and I need to be honest with people."
She added: "My focus is on reforming the planning system to get Britain building again...
"If we do those things, we will bring in the tax revenue and we will be able to invest in public services again. There's no shortcuts. That is the way."
So I repeat the question - does anyone know how this differs from current Tory government policy?
I don't think relaxing planning laws differs from current Tory policy.
In what way will a Labour government help bankrupt councils that is different to what is currently happening?
It's a fair and reasonable question to ask, and it is quite a serious problem.
My focus is on reforming the planning system to get Britain building again…
The magic 'reform' solution ...
Especially when the reforming will be the councils job who won't have it in their list of things they already cannot afford to do.
Fortunatly the construction industry and developers are know for their honesty and integrity, so there won't be any problems with them pushing beyond the boundries of acceptable practice while we wait for all those extra taxes to roll in and fund the agencies that keep them in check.
It is almost like she is just making it all up isn't it.
You won’t be surprised to learn that I did of course read the whole article before providing a link to it
Can you highlight where she said "Labour will not bail out bankrupt councils, the shadow chancellor has said.", which you highlighted in bold with the original article?
I already have - I copied and pasted her reply.
Nowhere does Rachel Reeves claim that she will do anything to help bankrupt councils, when she is asked the question directly, beyond apparently "reforming the planning system".
Do you call reforming the planning system "bailing out bankrupt councils"?
And I am assuming that you don't know the answer to my question concerning how this differs from current Tory government policy?
I am not sure that repeating the same question as argee contributes much to the discussion MCTD. I already answered it. See my previous post.
A more useful contribution might be if you can reveal how Labour policy on bankrupt councils differs from Tory policy on the matter?
As I said, it is a reasonable question relating to a very serious issue which costs a lot of ordinary working people a lot of money and results in failing services.
A more useful contribution might be if you can reveal how Labour policy on bankrupt councils differs from Tory policy on the matter?
I doubt anyone on here has a comprehensive understanding of what the tories policy was/is and what the Labour policy will be when/if they get into government, you're asking a question that has no answer yet..
Again, if you're quoting papers, it's bad form to use an article that uses misquotes like this, i've complained about the article now to the news agency involved.
"A more useful contribution might be if you can reveal how Labour policy on bankrupt councils differs from Tory policy on the matter?"
A record 19 councils in England have been handed multimillion-pound government bailout agreements totalling £2.5bn to prevent them collapsing into bankruptcy in the next few months, in a move likely to trigger a new round of public asset sales.
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has agreed that the councils can take the highly unusual step of using funds raised by loans, or the sale of assets such as land and buildings, to plug holes in day-to-day revenue accounts.
The agreements, known as capitalisation directions, are not grants or bailouts in the conventional sense of a cash injection but an arrangement that allows councils to bypass normal accounting rules to convert capital sums obtained by loans or selling assets into revenue.
That's the Tory policy then, the councils can support themselves by borrowing more or selling off publicly owned assets.
Reeves, as quoted above, has stated that they'll invest in public services but without really being clear how or when this would be achieved.
So they're clearly different, unless you are assuming that what Reeves means in her politicians non-answer is identical to the current approach..
She said this:
She added: "My focus is on reforming the planning system to get Britain building again...
"If we do those things, we will bring in the tax revenue and we will be able to invest in public services again. There's no shortcuts. That is the way."
So she has everything back to front (again) and she claims there are no shortcuts.
She could simply just pay/inject cash for them as Chancellor using the regular channels of government money. It's simply a political choice to not do that.
So she believes : reform = more tax receipts = then can spend.
Total toss, and the wrong way around for how government funding really works.
Agreed - a very different approach to the Tory one. Reeves is saying jam tomorrow and the Tories are saying you can have your jam today but you'll need to swap it for your toast.
I am not sure that repeating the same question as argee contributes much to the discussion MCTD. I already answered it. See my previous post.
You made a big play on a headline that was not supported by the article. You then doubled down by quoting a part of the article that clearly doesn't support the headline, or your own repetition of it's claim.
Reeves may turn out out to be a worse chancellor than Kwarteng, but you have failed to provide evidence to back up your claim.
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has agreed that the councils can take the highly unusual step of using funds raised by loans, or the sale of assets such as land and buildings, to plug holes in day-to-day revenue accounts.
Is it really highly unusual - I thought that local councils had been selling off assets for years to plug holes in day-to-day revenue accounts, and also investing in commercial ventures precisely to generate much needed revenue?
Is Labour's policy really to stop local authorities from selling off any assets should they become technically bankrupt? I agree that it would be different to current Tory policy but when has Labour suggested that it would do that?
And although I don't understand how "reforming the planning system" would help councils which have issued Section 114 notices how is that different to the Tory policy position of reforming the planning system to allow more green field/belt developments?
My own council has issued Section 114 notices on three occasions in the last couple of years. Initially the somewhat corrupt Labour controlled council got into an extremely serious financial situation by spending huge amounts of council tax payers money on failed business ventures.
After the first Section 114 notice Croydon Council was forced to sell their failed business ventures at huge losses and they were prohibited from spending any money on anything beyond their statutory obligations. And since then they have imposed massive hikes in council tax during a cost of living crisis.
When and where has Labour said that they would do things differently in cases of Section 114 notices? With a Shadow Chancellor who has made such a huge issue over the claim of Labour being more fiscally prudent than the Tories it is reasonable to be sceptical that they would.
You made a big play on a headline that was not supported by the article.
No mate, only in your head. It is you and Argee who have made a huge issue of the headline - Argee has even admitted to complaining to Sky News about the headline! ffs
I simply copied and pasted it because it seemed an appropriate headline for the Sky News article which I linked.
Let's look at it another way around: when Reeves was was asked if she would bail-out bankrupt councils - she could have said 'of course we will fix them - there is no other choice as they've been destroyed by the Tories and people deserve better. As a government that holds the purse strings to the countries finances we will find the money.'
Centrism really is stupid politics built on lies; and doing heavy lifting for Conservation logic - with absolutely no real solutions to the current situation.
All in the name of Labour.
None of that makes any sense whatsoever, you want Reeves to make a commitment without knowing the depths of the issue, both in government funding and in the council crisis?!
As for your statement on centrism, you could make the exact same for leftism and far right, moderate right, centre left, etc, etc, it's just words put together to critique a political view without any factual information involved.
None of that makes any sense whatsoever, you want Reeves to make a commitment without knowing the depths of the issue, both in government funding and in the council crisis?!
Seeing that Reeves could be chancellor in a few months don't you think she should know the depths of the issue and have a good plan to deal with it very quickly.
Even if she doesn't have enough detail she can still have said that yes Labour will be helping the councils more and believe it or not the people server by the councils are the very same people the government are supposed to be there for. She could even go further and say she would reform funding all together and say for example that social care it going to be funded separately as that is a national issue.
She has said that in her replies that she will not be bailing our councils so while she didn't speicifally say those exact words that is an accurate summary of what she was saying.
Apologies for the link to the Sun. I heard this on the radio this morning and couldn't quite believe it so I had to search - so far the Sun is the only one carrying the story.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/26675437/huge-change-to-concert-ticket-prices-under-labour/
Basically SKS has decided that the current scourge of society is ticket touts so there's policy to cap the resale value of gig tickets. 🙄
It does of course mention "hard-working Brits".
More 🙄🙄