Forum menu
Call me a hopeless idealist, but I just can’t get my head around, and will never accept the view that because you think change is impossible, you shouldn’t try to achieve it.
Absolutely you, we, all of us should try and make that change. But Labour can chose to be a (our?) talking shop, or try and get into government. I'd rather others pushed the ideas, with the help of you, me, us... and the Labour party were opportunistic enough to only embrace them openly if/when doing so doesn't consign them to yet more time watching the Conservatives run the country for their mates and sponsors.
Especially when those changes represent the truth, and the status quo is built on a foundation of lies.
Have you slept though the last five years?
Have you slept though the last five years?
What's your point? That the last 5 years have seen poltiicians, the media and the voters embrace lies and propaganda as the primary means of political discourse, and the labour party should do the same because that wiill win them power? It won't win them power, it will do the very opposite because labour are held to different standards. Their only chance of winning power is to inspire the hope for change in the population that things can be different, and you don't do that with flag waving, treating them like idiots and pointless government run savings accounts.
Putting policy aside - Starmer isn't really an inspiring leader type. I was hoping that the contrast to Johnson's bumbling might work - but it seems to not be the case so far.
I do think that the public are giving the Tories a lot of slack because of Covid - and they are getting credit because of the vaccine roll-out. Also, any other political news is very much secondary - but the lack of policy direction from Labour is unhelpful.
I am a Local Labour party officer and activist and it's difficult to sell the party to voters without a vision and understandable policy - end up using negative lines all the time which are completely valid - on indecisive Covid policy - late lockdowns/extra deaths, schools/exam shambles, child/food poverty, endless cronyism, Brexit shambles etc etc. But it's depressing to do all negative and no positive and voters don't really want to hear all downside.
The Party really needs to get it's finger out and sell a positive vision with some tangible policies we can campaign on
you think change is impossible
I don't think change is impossible, I just think that you have to be IN power to effect those sorts of changes. One cannot, from a platform of opposition, declaim that everything the govt does and says in relation to it's finances is a massive big lie, in the hope of getting to that position yourself...The electorate aren't that stupid.
... I don't think there is any contradiction in campaigning for the party as it stands and pushing for particular policies. My view will always be that a labour Govt will be better that a Tory Govt and that goes many times over for the current Govt.
So I'm happy to campaign for Starmer's Labour even if I think he's a bit of a wet weekend and we are lacking vision and policy. Equally happy to campaign for policy within the party.
I think both Corbyn and Starmer share an issue - a lack of political nous. Corbyn too much the idealist and too inflexible and Starmer all expedience and focus groups - but afraid to commit to strong position. We really need someone who understands how to deliver a vision but that cuts across to wider base of the electorate
but afraid to commit to strong position.
Honestly, I don't think anyone prepared to climb the greasy pole (regardless of party) in British politics does so while being "Mleh" about anything. I think Starmer has strong convictions. I think he's trying the "quiet, sensible grown-up" to Johnson's clown act. I can well understand the frustrations of folk who think the leader of the opposition should just bloody well get on with opposing. and I have sympathy with that, but honestly I don't think its the right time. It'll come, and Starmer bloody better step up, but I'm willing at the moment to give him the benefit of doubt
I just think that you have to be IN power to effect those sorts of changes.
If you're a politician then being in power is your raison d'etre, but it's not the only way to change things. Politics is a short term game, whereas the shifts in economic and political orthodoxy are longer term, more abstract thing than what one political party promises to do for the next 4 years. Irregardless of what labour and the tories do the nature of capitalism is transforming in response to climate change and automation, and this change has been accelerated by covid and the banking crash. A wise politician would ride the wave rather than being left behind by it, and Starmer right now looks like he's stuck in the 20th century.
"A wise politician would ride the wave rather than being left behind by it, and Starmer right now looks like he’s stuck in the 20th century."
........................
My thoughts exactly. On the three good words theme, Starmer could only cone up with two yesterday:
"Moral" and "Crusade"
Neither of them very good on their own and even worse when used in conjunction with each other.
Must try harder, or employ someone with some advertising or PR
nous.
Yeah, good point Dazh.
I make the point about the change in economic thinking - both generally and in the light of climate change all the time. Even the OECD came out again austerity and in favour of Govts borrow to invest as reported in the FT - so we are not exactly in the bounds of radical territory.
But it doesn't cut through to popular narrative. Marr and C4 have both used analogies around paying of the credit card and balancing the household budget when talking about national economic policy. It's extremely frustrating and makes our MPs and policy makers nervous.
I argue we (the Labour Party) should be leading the argument and opinio and would get broad backing if we were braver. But the politicians still stinging from the magic money tree criticisms.
To be fair Annalise Dodds' speech about s month ago was actually more encouraging. It was trailed as economic responsibility. But she actually talked about the importance of fiscal rather than just monetary policy, industrial strategy, green investment and attacked Tory policy of QE/ austerity of last decade and generally pissing billions up the wall giving contracts to incompetent mates in the private sector. Building from that with some straightforward policies would be a good move
I argue we (the Labour Party) should be leading the argument and opinio and would get broad backing if we were braver. But the politicians still stinging from the magic money tree criticisms.
Couldn't agree more. The starting point should be to ask where the tories are getting the money they're throwing at covid and everything else, but then instead of saying it needs to be paid back, they can explain to voters why we don't need to worry about. It's not a major leap then to explain that as long as they don't cause inflatiion (which most people understand in the form of price rises) we can continue to use the same mechanisms to solve other problems such as poverty and inequality.
The starting point should be to ask where the tories are getting the money they’re throwing at covid and everything else, but then instead of saying it needs to be paid back, they can explain to voters why we don’t need to worry about. It’s not a major leap then to explain that as long as they don’t cause inflatiion (which most people understand in the form of price rises) we can continue to use the same mechanisms to solve other problems such as poverty and inequality.
I agree. However, we know what will be thrown back at any of these suggestions. And it’ll work. I don’t have an idea how to get an electorate that has accepted austerity lying down to come round to that point of view. I only heard the one Dodds interview yesterday morning and it was utterly uninspiring. Every other answer was “well, now is not the time...”
To be fair Annalise Dodds’ speech about s month ago was actually more encouraging. It was trailed as economic responsibility. But she actually talked about the importance of fiscal rather than just monetary policy, industrial strategy, green investment and attacked Tory policy of QE/ austerity of last decade and generally pissing billions up the wall giving contracts to incompetent mates in the private sector. Building from that with some straightforward policies would be a good move
I agree.
I don’t have an idea how to get an electorate that has accepted austerity lying down
They accepted austerity because they were told the country would go bankrupt and end up like Greece if they didn't. How would they react if somehow they got the message that the country couldn't go bankrupt? I don't think I've seen a single politician, not even Corbyn or McDonnell who has tried, so how do we know what the response will be? GIven the alternative of perpetual tory government I struggle to see what they have to lose, and better that message comes from sensible serious types like Starmer and Dodds than radicals like McDonnell.
How would they react if somehow they got the message that the country couldn’t go bankrupt?
Hopefully they'll dismiss such an analogy. Because that is as gross an oversimplification and miss-use of unrelated language as describing government debt as an overdraft. A country can't go bankrupt... they are not an individual.
and better that message comes from sensible serious types like Starmer and Dodds than radicals like McDonnell
I miss McDonnell... his TV interviews were always gold. Dodds' efforts are actually taking steps in the direction you (and I) would like Dazh... but every time I see or hear her (trying) to delivering her words to the public (via parliament, virtually, or on TV/Radio) I'm reminded just how wrong she is for the current political world... no one will be listening to anything she says.
How would they react if somehow they got the message that the country couldn’t go bankrupt?
Well...there’s getting the message and getting them to get the message. Here’s hoping.
Sir has stated his main commitments to be defence, business and landlords and I'm sure he's capable of arguing for just a little bit of 'National Interest' austerity. Business has created inequality and he can't attack inequality whilst backing business so he's stuck with making ludicrous comments in front of a flag or a council block that define the preposterous, 'Looking back, I can see behind me. The future's going to be different from the past. It always is.' You would have to be wildly optimistic to think Sir is going to make any difference at all, even his rhetoric is empty. He does seem a dab hand at driving socialists out of the party though and those remaining have to come up with new theories about the tory-terrifying power of silence and abstention and how businesses are created to benefit workers. No wonder voters are confused, both teams are playing on the same side.
Starmer has to “back business”… are you retired?
"Business has created inequality and he can’t attack inequality whilst backing business"
........................
Perhaps we could get rid of business by nationalizing everything and putting all employment in control of the government.
I am self employed. I am a business. Though I am more interested in creating opportunity rather than creating inequality.
I am self employed. I am a business.
When Starmer says he's pro-business he's not talking about you or the millions of small and medium sized businesses. He's sending a clear signal to big business that he won't raise their taxes, interfere with their tax evasion activities, punish their executives for awarding themselves outrageous remuneration packages or threaten their monopolies. It's got nothing to do with self-employed people or small businesses.
Business has created inequality and he can’t attack inequality whilst backing business
Utter and complete cobblers! Business hasn't created inequality. Government policies have. Business creates wealth, progress and opportunity. It's what happens with that afterwards through taxation, redistribution and regulation.
For example: you moan about monopolies, but those monopolies in, say, energy and water supply or rail travel were entirely created by the policy of successive Tory governments. If business had been allowed to function properly as a free market, those monopolies wouldn't exist.
He’s sending a clear signal to big business that he won’t raise their taxes, interfere with their tax evasion activities, punish their executives for awarding themselves outrageous remuneration packages or threaten their monopolies.
More utter and complete cobblers!
Daz - for someone who advocates progressive policies, you don't half quickly default to tired, cliched, 70's-style leftie nonsense when anyone mentions the word 'business'.
What evidence do you have that Starmer is wooing the global, internationalist tax-dodger or Russian Oligarch? Can you give me any actual examples? Because I think this exists in your head, not reality. I think he'll be well aware that the present Tory party have those people well and truly in the bag. They serve their interests exclusively.
When I listen to Annaleisse Dodds I hear her trying to appeal to exactly the people labour need to win over to stand a chance of getting into government. I hate the word 'aspirational', but they have to appeal to the self-employed and business owners. These people have voted Tory in the past, but must surely be receptive to Labour now that the Torys have abandoned them through Covid and Brexit? Just as they were receptive to... you know... 'him' (IRAQ!!!!)
And as someone who's been self-employed most of my life, and works with many small and medium sized business owners on a daily basis, I find the attitude of 'the left' towards business to be absolutely ridiculous, with little or no basis in reality.
People don't set up businesses with the thought "how can I best ruthlessly exploit the workers and avoid paying any tax?". Its just total bollocks! The vast majority of business owners are good people, who care deeply about the people who work for them and are as as ambitious to be creating something positive in their communities as they are about personal wealth.
These people, despite feeling no love for the present Tory party, could never vote for someone like Corbyn because, like you, he resonated an attitude that said all business owners are some kind of victorian mill-owners or slave traders and should all be treated as such.
Seems to me that Starmer and Dodds recognise this and are trying to repair the damage of the last 5 years by convincing these people that its safe to vote Labour again, because if they can't do that then its permanent opposition, I'm afraid
In today’s Telegraph:
This week, Sir Keir Starmer made what was billed as a major speech entitled “A New Chapter for Britain”. It has not won rave reviews. It was dull. But it is worth looking at why Sir Keir felt he had to make it.
Politicians often lag behind the public. It has taken Labour almost a year of Covid to realise that, in a grave crisis, voters do not want their Government discredited. Their partisan feelings weaken and their patriotic ones strengthen. They want leaders to confront the clear and present danger unitedly or, at least, constructively.
As a columnist, I find readers take this line strongly. They are outraged by coverage, particularly on the BBC, which piles on the agony and fans the fear, and by politicians who do the same. Partly in response to their anguish, this column promised last March, in relation to Covid, to try to be friendly to all involved. It would only “point the finger at the people who love pointing the finger”.
Boris Johnson is consistently lucky in his enemies. Back in 2019, they hated him so much that they could not see why he might become Prime Minister, or achieve Brexit, or win an election landslide as a result. Even after he did all these, they thought he could not get a Brexit trade deal by the end of 2020. When Covid came, they still did not learn their lesson. They loved pointing the finger at his numerous mistakes. Many believed he would fall.
So it shocks such critics that, nearly a year later, Labour is behind in the opinion polls. Their tactics have not worked. Instead, the astonishing success of Britain’s vaccine programme has soothed the anger on which they had hoped to capitalise. Frustrated, they turn on their own low-key leader.
Sir Keir has understood from the start that oppositional politics can get the tone wrong during an emergency. His criticisms of the Government are usually rational, if not very creative. Now, however, feeling the heat from his party, he tries to do two potentially conflicting things at once. One is to satisfy his party by expressing outrage at the Government. The other is to present a national vision that can win back the voters who deserted Labour in 2019, most notably in the 43 seats the party lost in its “Red Wall”.
He seeks an answer in the example of Clement Attlee. That modest man defeated Winston Churchill by a landslide in the 1945 general election. He went on to lead a Labour government which introduced seriously socialist measures, such as punitive taxes and nationalisation of heavy industries, yet was unimpeachably patriotic and respectable. Both Right and Left of the Labour Party admire the Attlee years. They unite in pride at the foundation of the National Health Service.
When Labour won in 1945, men like Bevin, Morrison, Dalton and Cripps were already big figures of government – experienced, powerful and respected. Through no personal fault, Sir Keir and his shadow Cabinet are none of these things
Temperamentally, Sir Keir is attracted to “Citizen Clem”. Like Attlee, he lacks charisma, but believes he offers honest doggedness instead. In his unspoken analogy, the quiet man can triumph over the noisy egomaniac. For Clem versus Winston, read Keir versus Boris. The comparison also offers Sir Keir a model as we move towards a post-Covid world: “I believe there’s a mood in the air which we don’t detect often in Britain. It was there in 1945, after the sacrifice of war, and it’s there again now. It’s the determination that our collective sacrifice must lead to a better future.”
The Attlee model is indeed instructive; but consider the comparison more closely and you encounter real difficulty.
The Labour victory of 1945 was possible because Labour had been in the wartime coalition government since 1940. Since Churchill’s main aim was to lead his country to victory in world war, it was his deputy, Attlee, and Attlee’s Labour colleagues who chiefly looked after the home front. The common purpose of war permitted the extension of government control over economic and social life which socialists love. Returning soldiers, remembering the unemployment of the Conservative-dominated 1930s, believed Labour offered them a better chance of a decent job.
When Labour won in July 1945, almost all of Attlee’s Cabinet had served in the wartime coalition. Men like Bevin, Morrison (grandfather of Peter Mandelson), Dalton and Cripps were already big figures of government – experienced, powerful and respected.
Through no personal fault, Sir Keir and his shadow Cabinet are none of these things. Only three – Sir Keir is not one of them – have held Cabinet posts. The public have barely heard of any except Ed Miliband. In 1945, Labour had a good answer to the question, “What did you do in the war, then?” It can have no such answer about the Covid war and therefore has little moral authority.
At the last election, Sally Gimson was chosen as the Labour candidate in the traditional Labour seat of Bassetlaw, in Nottinghamshire. Less than two weeks after her selection by the local party, Jeremy Corbyn’s Momentum overthrew her in a coup. The Corbynista who replaced her just as the campaign began turned a 4,852 Labour majority into a 14,032 majority for his Conservative opponent.
Ms Gimson recently published an interesting pamphlet for the Fabian Society (Building Bridges: Lessons of Bassetlaw) reporting the gulf she found between the values of natural Labour voters, especially older ones, and the modern Labour Party. Such people felt warmth towards “the Armed Forces and the Royal family”, she says, but all they got from Mr Corbyn was sympathy for Hamas and the IRA. Voters from small towns or villages, where in the past Labour had long sustained “old friendships”, were left defenceless by Labour against what she sees as the Tories’ “populist English nationalism”.
Sir Keir no doubt recognises the value of front-line reports such as Ms Gimson’s. The way he toys with the Union flag, as he did for his speech this week, shows him sidling towards Bassetlaw. Unlike Mr Corbyn, he does not hate Britain. But is he – a woke, ultra-Remainer, anti-monarchist, London human-rights lawyer who “took the knee” last summer – all that much closer than was Mr Corbyn to the provincial nation that cares about country and fairness rather than enforced “equality” and BLM-style culture wars?
I would like to pursue Sir Keir’s 1945 analogy in one further respect. In that election campaign, Churchill made a bad mistake. Justifiably inspired by F A Hayek’s warning in The Road to Serfdom that socialism could lead to tyranny, he used this against Labour. He declared that socialism eventually needed “some form of Gestapo” to enforce its will. His phrase disrespected the collective sacrifice. The word “Gestapo”, applied to Attlee’s Labour, defied reality and was in poor taste. Attlee quietly turned Churchill’s blunder to his advantage.
It is surely unlikely, by the time the next election comes, that Boris will make a comparable mistake. Sir Keir’s speech this week complains that the Tories make all their decisions “guided by the notion that government can’t interfere with the market”. This is patently untrue. This Government has intervened more spectacularly in the normal workings of the market than any peacetime government in our history. Artificially prolonged Covid restrictions and emergency powers could well pave the road to serfdom.
But who in politics will express that fear? The danger now is not of Tory market mania, but of two big parties competing over which will intervene and spend the most. Sir Keir should recognise that Boris is not opening up the economic market but cornering the political one.
Business creates wealth, progress and opportunity.
Good old trickle down.
It’s not about ‘trickle down’. It’s about having a vibrant and innovative private sector that is properly taxed and regulated to benefit the whole of society
Successive governments have been happy to see the former and absolutely woeful at delivering the latter
At present this country is allegedly capitalist, but it’s nothing of the sort. It’s a corporatist tax haven riddled with monopolies, cartels and corrupt, cronyist vested interests, as all the dodgy Covid contracts have shown
Labour should be offering a proper capitalist system, with proper regulation and taxation, where small businesses stand a chance against the Amazons of this world and thus create proper wealth and opportunities, which can then be properly taxed to benefit all
It’s not about ‘trickle down’. It’s about having a vibrant and innovative private sector that is properly taxed and regulated to benefit the whole of society
Excellent. Where does this utopia exist?
Well somewhere like Germany or Sweden is a damn site closer to it than we are, so aiming for that would be a start
No doubt you’d prefer Venezuela as an economic model 🙄
Well somewhere like Germany or Sweden is a damn site closer to it than we are, so aiming for that would be a start
They're more effective at deriving some side benefits from business, yes. But your assertion about benefits for all is unrealisable, as you must know, and is not the purpose of business.
We tried a Labour party with the sort of policies common in Scandinavia, and you didn't seem to like it. If you think Starmer would do any more than a token light sanding of a few rough edges, I suggest you take more water with it.
It’s about having a vibrant and innovative private sector that is properly taxed and regulated to benefit the whole of society
Did you cut and paste that from a Will Hutton book? 🙂
I find the attitude of ‘the left’ towards business to be absolutely ridiculous, with little or no basis in reality.
In my 25 year working life I've worked for businesses in the private sector for all but three of them. For the past 15 years I've worked for a large multinational engineering firm which is employee-owned (one of the main reasons I still work there). Clearly I don't have much a problem with business, even big ones. What I do have a problem with though is the type of businees which doesn't create wealth, but extracts it by way of doing stuff which creates very little and represents very little value other than swelling the pockets of executives, senior managers and shareholders. If Starmer's going to do something about them then great. He had a perfect opportunity in his speech this week to set out how he proposes to create the german style business environment you want. Did he do that? Did he ****!
He’s sending a clear signal to big business that he won’t raise their taxes, interfere with their tax evasion activities, punish their executives for awarding themselves outrageous remuneration packages or threaten their monopolies.
He definitely meant all of that?
'Business hasn’t created inequality. ' I guess Bezos acquired his billions by getting lucky in the interview whereas others not so fortunate have to do the just-above-minimum-wage picking and delivering jobs. In relative or absolute terms if wages go down profits go up. Class struggle innit, pick a side. 'Growth' is the mantra because it doesn't involve any sort of redistribution. Businesses look after their workers because they are the goose that lays the golden egg but are quick to sack when it suits the balance sheet.
Binners have a read of this. The German style productive, democratic, ‘vibrant’ economy was exactly what McDonnell was proposing to do. Something Starmer has now clearly abandoned. It’s tragic.
https://tribunemag.co.uk/2021/02/the-unbearable-lightness-of-keir-starmer
..and David Lammy is on Marr this morning embarrassing himself by claiming Starmer's speech was visionary and his saving account is radical idea. I had a lot of respect for Lammy, but it seems he's lost it too. Meanwhile McDonnell understands what really needs to be done..
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-debt-tax-john-mcdonnell-b1804875.html
Or maybe he's realised it is the sort of approach that may give them chance of getting into power. I realise being in power doesn't bother you...
Or maybe he’s realised it is the sort of approach that may give them chance of getting into power.
I don't understand how claiming a speech is visionary when everyone can see it's the opposite will help get them into power. All it will do is confirm that they're on another planet and completely out of touch with the problems and concerns of ordinary people.
What's SKS had to say about Matt Hancock?
The Labour Party is the problem, not the solution.
It doesn't matter who's in charge of it.
The two-party, first past the post system is designed to deliver stability not change.
The most impactful political force within the UK over the past 20 years is one that only ever had one MP.
There’s a bigger problem than the Labour Party though… the other half of that two-party FPTP limitation. Easy to take your eye off that, while bemoaning that the opposition won’t go as far as you want.
binners did you ever read any Naomi Klein etc? Corporations' raison d'etre is making money and many of them pursue that with a pathological fervour. Your charming tale of how wonderful business people you've met are is irrelevant - most businesses will do what they can get away with, largely. I know a business owner who won't heat a warehouse in winter despite making multi million pound profits, because they don't want to spend the money and they can get away with it.
If we had USA style employment rights with two weeks holiday and no maternity pay, plus you can be sacked on a whim, think the majority of UK businesses would keep current standards out of the goodness of their hearts?
Yet again I'm wondering why you think of yourself as a Labour supporter.
And there we have it. Perfectly summed up. The 'inclusivity' of the left that the country found so appealing at the last election.
Get everyone to vote for us so we can actually make a difference? Why do that? Much better to wave placards from the ghetto of idealogical purity
What’s SKS had to say about Matt Hancock?
Absolutely chuffing nothing. Worse, even offered some support.
What’s SKS had to say about Matt Hancock?
Nuttin...But then I get why not, If they accuse Matt Hancock; he gets a chance to look like a busy man in a rush, held back by petty civil servants...
"Yeah, we cut some red tape, and broke a few rules about admin, The whole system was ****ed, and we had to do things in a hurry, I'm sorry I busted some petty regulations to get our brave nurses the protection they needed..."and then some waffle about Monty and Churchill getting things done.
Nah, If I was Stamer I'd go nowhere near it. I'd bet 50p the Tories are desperate for him to say something
think the majority of UK businesses would keep current standards out of the goodness of their hearts?
Not if their competitors dropped theirs, except when those competitors aren’t a threat. This is why shared minimum legally enforceable standards matter, and also why they need to extend beyond national borders. If looking after your staff means your customers going elsewhere, only certain types of business can choose to put workers first.
Starmer isn’t proposing lowering protection for workers though. “Backing business” does not have to mean “screw the workers” just because some Tories see it that way.
Nah, If I was Stamer I’d go nowhere near it.
Seems to be Starmer's approach to everything. As Malcolm Tucker would say 'NMFP'.
Starmer isn’t proposing lowering protection for workers though. “Backing business” does not have to mean “screw the workers” just because some Tories see it that way.
Given how low the bar is that's not saying much. Backing business right now *is* screwing the workers. Zero hours contracts, anti-union legislation, holding down the minimum wage, inappropriate use of self-employed contractors are all things Starmer could easily have a view on, but he chooses to remain silent.
Zero hours contracts, anti-union legislation, holding down the minimum wage, inappropriate use of self-employed contractors
No business owners I know want any of those things.
“Business” doesn’t just mean the likes of Amazon and Uber… and the companies they are squeezing out welcome decent, enforced and rising minimum standards… and for loopholes to be removed so they apply to all kinds of businesses.
And there we have it. Perfectly summed up. The ‘inclusivity’ of the left that the country found so appealing at the last election.
grum's statements about protecting workers are far more inclusive than your Panglossian views on business owners. I'm not surprised that you can't see it.
Get everyone to vote for us so we can actually make a difference? Why do that?
He might persuade more people to vote for him if they had some idea of what he actually wants for the country. You know, apart from more flags.
Zero hours contracts, anti-union legislation, holding down the minimum wage, inappropriate use of self-employed contractors
Sorry, but to state that most business owners want that is just utter and complete nonsense.
Once again you're conflating all forms of capitalism with the very worst sort of corrupt monopoly corporatism
No business owners I know want any of those things.
So because you don't know any business owners who want these things they don't exist? As I said, I work for a very 'ethical' business. We're employee owned, we don't pay anyone minimum wage, we have a profit share scheme, generous pension etc and even give our American colleagues 5 weeks holiday. That doesn't mean I'm not concerned about exploitative business practices though, in fact it makes me more concerned because I think all employees of all businesses should receive the benefits I have. At the very minimum I'd expect Starmer to be vocal about achieving this for everyone, instead at best we get silence, and at worst a clear indication that he intends to change nothing.
So because you don’t know any business owners who want these things they don’t exist?
Of course not. It is reminder that if you "Back business" you do not have to simultaneously have to be backing "screw the workers"... and while people on the left jump on Starmer for saying Labour back business, they are ignoring that simple fact.
That doesn’t mean I’m not concerned about exploitative business practices though
Precisely. Good employers want there to be a government that cracks down on other employers using exploitative employment practices to gain a competitive advantage. So there you are, you can "Back business" by raising, not lowering, minimum standards, and enforcing existing ones, and closing down loop holes.
EDIT: mental note ... "nation of shopkeepers" ... reforms to help SMEs ... needs an updated three word phrase ... keep "nation" in there though, for the flag wavers
So there you are, you can “Back business” by raising, not lowering, minimum standards, and enforcing existing ones, and closing down loop holes.
Has Starmer done that? All he's said is that he 'backs business', not 'backs non-exploitative business'. It would be very easy and not at all controversial for him to make that distinction, but he chooses not to.
Sounds like you wish he had made that Miliband speech you were predicting and deriding.
The fact that he hasn't even done that speaks volumes. Obviously I want him to go far beyond Miliband, but he can't even manage that and people still think he's somehow going to be better.
"People" will be comparing him to Johnson (or whoever succeeds him)... those measuring Starmer against previous losing Labour leaders are completely missing the point still. I still don't think that Starmer has what it takes to beat the Conservatives, and become PM.... but that absolutely should always be his focus, at all times, and all points... not cementing his legacy as yet another Labour opposition leader.
All he’s said is that he ‘backs business’, not ‘backs non-exploitative business’. It would be very easy and not at all controversial for him to make that distinction, but he chooses not to.
He probably chooses not too because not everyone is pedantic about it. In reality he doesn't say that because it is not necessary...
Once again you’re conflating all forms of capitalism with the very worst sort of corrupt monopoly corporatism
Very black and white world we live in these days. Particularly with the purists from the left and right around.
Marina Hyde had an interesting tale on Matt Hancock a couple of days back. She thought the Government should have split the health ministry into three parts in the overwhelming face of the pandemic. When I read that it seemed startlingly obvious!
She cited that when ever other ministers were asked a tricky question they replied: "you'll have to ask Matt Hancock" or: "That's Matt Hancock's department". So as much as he is as culpable as anyone for untendered procurement contracts etc, he can at least claim to have done a third of his job very well. He showed a little bit of inteligence and foresight which elevates him above all of the other ministers. He will now be a leadership contender.
Starmer would be mad to go after Hancock at the moment. Absurd as it might sound, he managed to deliver a 'world beating' vaccine procurement programme. There is no political capitol to be gained from criticising the government's handling of the pandemic. In the public's eyes the vaccine success will cancel out previous shortcomings. The government position will be the NHS didnt get completely overwhelmed, we were ahead of the game with regards the vaccine and as for the graft? You knew that when you voted for us didn't you?
They'll be 6 months grace for the government with the vaccine roll out and the leisure and entertainment industries opening up over the summer then as winter comes it's going to be all about Brexit. Labour should target all the small business owners and budding entrepreneurs who Boris has failed miserably. All of Labour's talking points should revolve around getting the economy moving for everyone.
Three word slogan anyone?
"Red Tape Tories".
Labour should target all the small business owners and budding entrepreneurs who Boris has failed miserably.
Exactly what I reckon. But they're all evil bastards, apparently. Every last one of them. And rather than being courted, they should be sent to re-education camps where they can be taught by Len McClusky why the workers must own the means of production and why all entrepreneurs are evil, baby-eating monsters who's only motivation is the ruthless exploitation of the working classes
Very black and white world we live in these days.
The 'left' and the 'right' agree on almost everything, they only differ on their views as to how wealth should be shared and how much the state should intervene in the market. As Chomsky said there is only really one party, the business party, with a left and right faction. This was still true with Corbyn as leader of the labour party, and it's even more true now. They both represent the same shade of grey. If you want real differences you need to look at people operating outside the confines of states and governments.
But they’re all evil bastards, apparently.
How on earth have you come to that conclusion?
If you want real differences you need to look at people operating outside the confines of states and governments.
True. But the “UK” has rejected this.
True. But the “UK” has rejected this.
Yes because the EU was anti-government 🙄
We live in the world that we live in. For the last few years the right has decided to start a culture war, (asking for equal rights is not starting a war, it's just asking for equal rights)
The push back against the political right has come more from business than political parties. It was Twitter (a private company) that finally put a muzzle on trump. It might sound strange but at the moment business is an important allie for progressives. People vote with their wallets as well.
Daily Mail readers froth at the mouth when they see black and brown people appearing in adverts, they say it's political correctness and that they are no longer going to buy that product or that service. Business says 'fine, jog on you racist t***, were trying to make money here and our adverts seem to be working."
Yes because the EU was anti-government
It emancipates people to work together beyond the petty and narrow concerns of national state governments. We have enabled our state government to take back control from individuals, groups, companies and devolved administrations, limiting their autonomy in law and drowning them in red tape, and now have them begging for permissions from government to do that which they were free to do with far less state government interference before.
If you want real differences you need to look at people operating outside the confines of states and governments.
You are Denis the constitutionalist peasant and I claim my five pounds (or, if voted by a 2/3rds majority; £7.50)
This whole “in the interests of business” pointless debate is one of the main reasons Brexit happened, and I really hope Starmer won’t be made to fight the same misunderstanding again… many people thought that because being in the EU was good for business, and experts on trade and economics were queueing up to back keeping membership, that it was for the global giants, not for them. Forgetting that business includes your next door neighbour specialising in selling Italian handbags online. Or the small company on the trading estate that her partner works for that makes a key component used in brewing. Or the sausage making plant their son works at part time during the summer. Business is not just Amazon and Uber. It is all of us.
But they’re all evil bastards, apparently. Every last one of them.
As said by literally no-one.
If the Labour Party isn't interested in things like good employee rights and safe working conditions, or ludicrously extravagant executive pay compared to subsistence or below wages, what are they interested in? It's nothing to do with ideological purity.
When you have a Tory cabinet that literally wrote a book saying they want to tear up regulation, and Starmer says.... nothing... Massive corruption and Starmer says..... nothing.
When you have a Tory cabinet that literally wrote a book saying they want to tear up regulation…
Reminds me of this…
https://twitter.com/ed_miliband/status/1355194309675524098?s=21
Massive corruption and Starmer says….. nothing.
Did you miss Starmers statement in reply to Johnson in parliament about an hour ago?
Thats exactly what he was talking about. Dodgy PPE contracts dished out to crony's without tender and the shambles of test and trace handed to his private sector mates
You are Denis the constitutionalist peasant and I claim my five pounds
Dammit you just nailed my invented internet persona 😄
Seriously though, my point is that many/most of the most radical and progressive things that happen in our society happen entirely outside the realm or influence of government. A lot of it happens in business. Did the government force John Lewis to set themselves up as a cooperative? Did the government force the owners of my company to hand the whole thing over to the employees when they retired? Of course not, political parties operate within a narrow bliinkered mindset where winning power and being the government are the only things that are important, and outside that the rest of the world keeps turning and getting on with what they want to do irregardless. Don't get me wrong, government is important, but it's not the only place where stuff happens, and pretty much everything the government does could be organised without politicians.
Co-operative friendly measures in the (losing) party manifestos at the last election:
It's not about nice or nasty bosses. Workers are employed so that employers can profit from their labour, hence (Adam Smith's) 'theory of value'. If they don't, they're out of business. Co-ops can't opt out of prevailing market conditions so workers in co-ops aren't necessarily that much better off, JLP has been laying off significant numbers. I think Sir will struggle to find an example of cuddly capitalism to be snapped in front of, he needs to find someone who expropriates surplus value in the friendliest possible way and has minority group managers and directors, 'ethical exploitation'.
Co-ops can’t opt out of prevailing market conditions so workers in co-ops aren’t necessarily that much better off
Agree to a point but workers are still better off than in a shareholder or privately held company. Coops still have to operate in a market environment, that means at least breaking even, which may require layoffs, restraints on pay etc as the market dictates. I've got no problem with coops making a profit and workers being paid according to their 'value' (within reason of course). The economy would be much healthier if privately owned companies transitioned to the cooperative model. Capitalism would still exist and profit would still be made, the but the problems of rapacious executives and corrupt practices which drive the exploitation of workers would be vastly reduced. Of course you still need good management and leadership, but that can be achieved just like it can in large public sector or non-profit organisations.
Absolutely agree. If only this sort of stuff was being proposed by either party but evidence suggests they will talk up a 'trickle down' policy. The Unicorn food shop in Chorlton seems to be a good setup but such examples are sadly rare. History is littered with failed businesses where owners tried to do the 'right thing' by their workers whilst in competition with rapacious exploiters.
The Unicorn food shop in Chorlton seems to be a good setup...
Yeah, but it's run by hippies for the hampsters* and yummy mummies of Chorlton, it couldn't actually exist in the real world.
*Damn them with their furry bodies and pouched cheeks...no, wait, Hipsters...
The Unicorn food shop in Chorlton seems to be a good setup
I don't know how you can say that when those monsters were responsible for Quinoagate....
That'll be the right-on, cooperative, collective where the car park is full of BMW X5's and Range Rovers picking up their organic, free-range, faitrade, ethically sourced, soil-association approved veggie products they've had flown in from Bolivia then? That one?
picking up their organic, free-range, faitrade, ethically sourced, soil-association approved veggie products they’ve had flown in from Bolivia then? That one?
They have a weird ban on sugar that they could only have come up with after a huge session with a bong...Now they'll sell you honey and maple syrup...but not sugar, because Sugar is bad for you, d'you see?
I get it. Little Tarquin and Tabatha both get absolutely hyper when they have sugar, and then we can't calm them down as we don't impose any restrictions on their behavior as that would essentially be oppression and would stifle their creativity in later life.
Middle-class people complaining about other middle-class people. Perfect STW material.
Hows life on the working class barricades, comrade?
Will you spare any of us, come the glorious revolution? Or is backs against the wall or off to the gulag for 're-education'
Any one wearing glasses or clutching a copy of guardian...off to the quarry
There'll be no more discussion of Yotam Ottolenghi mushroom and herb polenta recipes when you're turning big rocks into little rocks, you bourgeois scum