Nothing to offer except repeated disagreement with everything the Govt are doing. No meaningful alternatives, simply “we don’t like it and you’re doing it wrong”
Eh?
When was the last time you heard Johnson use his frightfully hilarious 'Captain Hindsight' jibe?
Not for a good while because Starmer has constantly been publicly calling for preventative steps to be taken when required, with lockdown measures, school closures etc, etc.
We've then all watched as the government has repeatedly dithered and delayed until being forced into what Starmer was asking for weeks before, all too late to make a real difference.
If the government had actually done what they should have done when Starmer asked for it, instead of crossing their fingers and hoping for the best, then there's no way we'd been in the position we're in now.
Let's not forget, the week before Christmas Gavin Williamson/Frank Spencer was threatening schools with legal action if they shut their doors
https://twitter.com/MissLauraMarcus/status/1348596594208288768?s=20
This morning he's been asking for more flexible working practices so that people can sort childcare for their children who are not going to be in school for the next few months, but who's parents are facing demands to go back into work
A decent performance which should have been ongoing for some months now
he then stuck his foot down the wartime rabbit hole ..a bit too johnsonian for my mind🤯 nicely avoided the B word however.
7/10
Pick one.
Yes I agree not allowing in foreign workers would have seen more jobs lost abroad but that's not how the brexit voting public saw it. What they saw was jobs first going overseas, and then the remaining jobs at home being taken by a very visible immigrant community. In terms of gaining support for brexit it was a double whammy, and all the direct result of new labour policy.
Nothing to offer except repeated disagreement with everything the Govt are doing. No meaningful alternatives, simply “we don’t like it and you’re doing it wrong”
Don't be ridiculous, he does nothing but agree with and support the govt. If it's not enough then I would suggest that what you want is a fascist state rather than a (dys)functioning democracy. You might want to have a look across the atlantic to see how that sort of thing is going.
Not for a good while because Starmer has constantly been publicly calling for preventative steps to be taken when required, with lockdown measures, school closures etc, etc.
IIRC, last Monday morning, he was still saying schools should stay open. I do understand your confusion though, given how often he changes his position.
In terms of gaining support for brexit it was a double whammy, and all the direct result of new labour policy.
The direct result of lies about the policy.
I mean, nearly every policy by every Labour government is portrayed as being a job killer... from National Insurance contributions to the minimum wage... careful where you lay the blame... if you ever want a Labour government again. Repeating and feeding the lies about migrant labour, the welfare state, employee standards etc will help the Tories stay in power. Their "keep the foreigners out, don't help scroungers, employees are lazy" line has been incredibly popular for a long time now... and they'll be doubling down on it all to win again. It'll be interesting to see how/if Starmer tries to cut through it.
Does EU membership for new entrants mean the Euro is mandatory? I think that would be a major bar to the UK ever re-joining.
Why?
Why?
Because it would be bloody stupid to join the euro. The greatest power of any country is to be able to issue its own currency.
Repeating and feeding the lies about migrant labour, the welfare state, employee standards etc will help the Tories stay in power.
Oh FFS, I'm not repeating lies, I'm explaining how the outcomes of labour's policies were interpreted by the voting public and how that contributed towards them voting for brexit. If you want to prevent future f*** ups which result in unintended consequences then you need to take your fingers out of your ears and open your eyes. New Labour may well have been very pro-european, but they also fuelled pro-brexit sentiment. Starmer (to get back on topic) actually seems to understand this, hence his declaration that free movement is not something he will pursue.
What about Blair and new labour? They forged ahead with the neoliberal project and opened the doors to foreign workers. Brexit was a fringe ambition of a few nutters, but Blair gave it legs by mobilising most of the white working class behind it after they saw their wages fall and jobs lost abroad or to imported labour. The conditions for brexit existed long before Cameron appeared.
Starmer’s conversion to born-again lexiteer is a weird one. Probably a good thing though, and its prettty much labour’s only option if they want to win back the red wall seats. Obviously he’s calculating that when it comes to the crunch the remainers will jump back on board when faced with the prospect of 5 more years of the tories.
Protectionisum has never worked as an economic policy and will never work in a global economy.
The "white working class" didn't lose job or wages because of Economic Migration during the Blair years, Economic Migration helped create an economy with very low unemployment and higher wages.
Both the hard left and hard right like the fall back on that old lie of them "coming over here to steal our Jobs/Houses/Women" nonsense.
I don't see Starmer as a Lexiteer, voting for 'the Deal' was the least worst solution, it's easy for some to he "sold out", but then a lot of people on the Right, and indeed Left of UK Polotics were hoping for a hard, no-deal Brexit, because they thought 10 years or more of economic pain was worth the cost for building their Socialist / Capitalist utopia.
Sadly, the UK won't be re-joining the EU for at least a generation, it's too sore a wound to open again, and 'The deal' at least won't cause the sort of pain needed to build the desire to. I suspect successive Governments of any colour will spend the years to come, negotiating better and better deals with the EU, selling the virtue of the economic benefits, whilst downplaying the fact we're members in all but name.
The “white working class” didn’t lose job or wages because of Economic Migration during the Blair years
See above. It's irrelevant whether people actually did lose out to immigrants, what's important is that they thought they did. The problem was that the increase in immigration from eastern europe coincided with the migration of jobs abroad due to globalisation and the stagnation in real incomes. People knew they were worse off, and came to the obvious conclusion that was because jobs were being outsourced and erroneously being taking by immigrants. The result was brexit.
They were worse off because they elected successive Conservative governments in the wake of an international downturn.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/real-wages-and-living-standards/
Kelvin wages were already stagnating before 2008. Combine that with the influx of eastern european workers and the outsourcing of jobs to india etc people came to the obvious conclusion. Then 2008 came and made it much, much worse. They saw bankers being bailed out by a labour government, and almost no action taken against those who caused the crash. This all happened before Cameron, all he had to do was impose austerity as the icing on the cake and brexit was inevitable.
edit: That graph you posted (nice googling BTW, I almost posted it myself) supports my point. It clearly shows wages levelling off in labour's final term, just at the time when immigration and outsourcing were taking off.
I'm looking at the period when Blair let workers from the succession countries into the UK. We had rising real wages, and falling unemployment. The international economic collapse, and then the years of "belt tightening" by the Tories (and others) afterwards, resulted in a decline in fortunes for many. It was not the foreign workers, it was as a result of poor regulation of the financial industry, here and abroad, and the attempts to "rebuild" after the collapse by slowing the growth in state spending and the wider economy down (still sounds crazy when I type it).
It was not the foreign workers
I've already agreed with you on this, but I'm pretty sure most other people, brexit voters especially, didn't think this way. Blair thought he could implement neo-liberal economics and labour policies with no consequence. Brown also thought he could paper over the financial crisis with the bailout and continue with business as usual. Then Cameron came along with austerity to tip everyone over the edge. Brexit wasn't just the result of Cameron and Farage, new labour also played a significant part. I don't know why you seem intent on denying this.
Because, unlike a huge proportion of this country, I refuse to pass unwarranted blame onto either the migrant workers that came here, or the decision to let them come here. Is allowing people to work across national barriers "neo-liberal" by the way?
Is allowing people to work across national barriers “neo-liberal” by the way?
It's one of the things which identifies a deregulated capitalist economy. Free movement of jobs, goods, labour and money. Before the neo-liberal era all of these things were regulated to varying degrees to protect national economies from external shocks. This also had the beneficial side effect of ensuring corporations and rich individuals paid tax in the countries they were resident. No doubt someone will be along to call it protectionist as if that's a bad thing, which it is if the thing you're protecting is a corrupt elite. But when it's workers rights and freedoms you're protecting from the ravages of unrestrained capital then it's a good thing, and that's where Starmer should be focusing his efforts.
You have it upside down, Dazh, it's socialism that's in favour of free movement of labour. The university lectures I went to back in the day and more recently in discussion junior who was at the Humbolt both held socialism to be inclusive; we're all in this together and it's an international movement.
Some obvious key words into Google and the first result tends to back up what the university types were saying:
https://www.labourfreemovement.org/why-socialist-arguments-against-free-movement-dont-add-up/
That last post of yours I find very troubling Dazh.
That last post of yours I find very troubling Dazh.
Why? You don't think workers need to be protected from unrestrained and unregulated capitalism? I'm all for free movement, but only if workers are protected equally and are competing on a level playing field. Capitalism wants to deregulate so they can exploit workers by creating a race to the bottom. That then creates divisions and opportunities for populists to use identity politics to gain power. What's troubling about wanting to resist that?
Why?
That you jumped from discussion of workers crossing borders to protecting workers. It’s all a bit nationalist. Foreign born workers are not the threat in this regard here, and the UK populace have enabled the removal of their own rights and protections by liars blaming immigration.
It’s all a bit nationalist
A nationalist socialist? Haven't we been down this road already?
It’s all a bit nationalist.
Oh give over. It's not nationalist to suggest that workers should be protected from the undercutting of wages and protections. The EU doesn't have free movement with the rest of the world. Does that make it nationalist? It's certainly protectionist, the only difference is where you draw the border. Actually the EU is one of the few supra-national organisations which enables internal free movement by providing the things I was talking about. It's not perfect though, and it's perfectly valid to raise concerns about the effect of free movement on localised economies.
Personally I don't think free movement was the problem. Globalised outsourcing and deregulation had a bigger effect on incomes than foreign workers IMO. The problem is many more people think it was just the influx of immigrant workers, because that's what they could physically see. I suggest you go looking for racism and nationaliism elsewhere. You won't find any here.
A nationalist socialist?
Presumably Starmer is a nazi now too? It's a perfect example of how deranged the redundant remain argument is becoming. Some people really need to get a grip.
You are changing the subject from movement of workers to workers rights and protections. Other workers are not the threat, a state that seeks to reduce rights and protections as an economic and political aim is. The threat is not at the gates, it is running the country.
You are also having your cake and eating it… “it’s not me blaming foreign workers, I’m just making the case for those that do.”
Workers need protection… it’s not immigrant workers they need protecting from, or who are going to remove protections.
What’s troubling about wanting to resist that?
Which one does by creating an international unionised labour force that can use it's position to negotiate better wages and conditions across continents. There's no point IG metal going on strike if FO work overtime to compensate. Movements need to be international and that's exactly what has happened in the EU. European parliamentary groups have formed from members with common ideals and goals. You know where all that pro-worker EU legislation come from, it's labour movements from across Europe using their collective bargaining power to pressure the politicians into making the right laws.
I’m just making the case for those that do.
I'm not even doing that if you bother to read my posts properly without your 'anyone who questions the EU status quo must be a nazi' glasses on.
You know where all that pro-worker EU legislation come from, it’s labour movements from across Europe using their collective bargaining power to pressure the politicians into making the right laws.
Yeah thanks for that. As a long time internationalist lefty I already knew. I have no idea why you think I don't though. Did you miss the repeated points I've made that foreign workers weren't the problem?
‘anyone who questions the EU status quo must be a nazi’
I haven’t said or implied that now, have I.
I haven’t said or implied that now, have I.
No you were just hinting that unregulated capitalism is the only way to protect us from nationalism. Now where have I heard free market capitalists claiming they are the sole defenders of freedom? Actually the US is a fairly good case study in protectionism. You'll note that the democrats there are largely making the same arguments I am, that rather than stopping immigration, we need to ensure immigrants receive the same protections as native workers to prevent a race to the botttom.
No you were just hinting that unregulated capitalism is the only way to protect us from nationalism.
I absolutely have said no such thing.
Why? You don’t think workers need to be protected from unrestrained and unregulated capitalism?
Have I entered a parallel universe? No of course I haven't, its just the twisted logic of the Left when it comes to the EU. Need I remind you its not the EU that's going to start dumping its rights and protections for the citizens of its members, its the country you seem to be 'not condoning', but 'understanding' when it comes to no free movement.
What you and many on the right share in common is that your time is up, and as a result of not only the last four years, this country's time is also up, your thoughts and beliefs belong in the previous century, you will not see the utopia you are searching for, only de-regulation, and de-humanisation of its citizens. This country will become the very thing you accuse the EU of.
Freedom of movement still had rules and laws, there is a difference between freedom and what you are about to see here: a free for all.
But who am I kidding here? You're thinking and that of the right are not a stick in the mud, more a steel rod in concrete, And the country has been thrown overboard with its concrete boots on, And is off to sleep with the fish.
your thoughts and beliefs belong in the previous century
Aside from the rest of your unhinged rant this point is an interesting one, because contrary to your view, the modern left, with it's focus on climate change, sustainability, universal basic income, MMT and harnessing automation for the benefit of the common good is pretty much the only political and economic movement which is seriously looking to the future. Whereas stablishment centrism is stuck in a never ending downward spiral of outdated economic dogma and political cowardice, with the result being a resurgence of populist identity politics. No problem was ever solved by keeping things the same.
Which of those has anything to do with allowing people to work/live/learn/love/move across national borders? Are you blaming "a resurgence of populist identity politics" on people not born here, or those allowing people not born here to live here? Is the opportunity to have horizons beyond your own country now a "stablishment centrism" idea only? It always struck me a something the centre left and further left could agree on... apart from the Blue Labour types.
Anyway... at least Starmer looks to be making a move you can get behind.
The FOM thing is total bullshit.
There are multiple ways that Labour could and should have dealt with it but instead they chose to align with the Tories because they see that as being the only way of being elected. If you can't articulate your policies in such a way that the people who will directly benefit from them won't support you then why are you even in politics?
Labour, in theory, is the party of the unions. Why are they saying 'No more FOM' instead of 'Collective agreements guarantee that immigrants can't undercut and drive down wages'?
This is not some socialist utopia wishful thinking. This is the way it works in many if not most EU and EFTA countries.
The fact that the supposedly pro-union party can't push a pro-union policy and has chosen to ape the right's racist policies shows that there is pretty much no hope for England and Wales.
You know all those Chalet girls and boys the British companies used to pay peanuts to work in French chalets. Well despite all the ills of freedom of movement the French government successfully legislated to get them poaid the French minimum wage. This caused outrage among the chalet owning community in Les Arcs (I was there and found it very hard to keep a straight face). It stopped an economic model based on social dumping and the girl employed in the hotel I stayed in was delighted.
So you can have freedom of movement and legislate to protect people from economic abuses it might make possible.
The hotel owner had gone one step further, he'd decided to only employ on local contracts - good man. All that's ****ed though, the generations of young people who worked in the Alps, had a ball and learned a language, it's over.
And Starmer has no intention of doing anything about it. I'm beginning to seriously dislike him, and I voted for someone significantly to the left of him in the last elections I voted in.
Are you blaming “a resurgence of populist identity politics” on people not born here
Kelvin you seem determined to paint me as a racist. I have no idea why but I suggest you move on and give up your fruitless quest 😉
at least Starmer looks to be making a move you can get behind.
Yawn, how many times.. I support freedom of movement. I do however support his efforts to move on from redundant remain arguments. They're no longer relevant for obvious reasons.
So you can have freedom of movement and legislate to protect people from economic abuses it might make possible.
Yes you can, as I have been saying repeatedly. I'm so glad we agree.
Kelvin you seem determined to paint me as a racist.
Really?!?
I simply want to clearly and plainly counter the idea that "our" workers are going to be protected from exploitation by stopping the free movement of workers with our neighbouring countries. It's populist nationalist nonsense.
I do however support his efforts to move on from redundant remain arguments. They’re no longer relevant for obvious reasons.
Labour should be pushing for visa wavers with our neighbours come the next election, and then move towards the limited FoM that the likes of Norway and Switzerland enjoy longer term. Neither are a "remain" argument... it is about freedoms, rights and protections for people... and building both the economic and social arguments for them. This is very relevant to post Brexit Britain, although I see why it currently politically very difficult and will be avoided by Starmer and his team, in England and Wales.
Labour should be pushing for visa wavers with our neighbours come the next election, and then move towards the limited FoM that the likes of Norway and Switzerland enjoy longer term
Norway and Switzerland have full FOM.
Yes, but not implemented the same way as the UK did when an EU member. We (rightly in my opinion) went well beyond the minimum required. Those days aren’t coming back, but neither must we stay with the new “sponsored to be here on a temporary basis by a big company’ status quo.
And Starmer has no intention of doing anything about it.
Against the background of the recent Brexishambles, is he (realistically) able to do anything about it?
Against the background of the recent Brexishambles, is he (realistically) able to do anything about it?
England and Wales are simply too racist now for the opposition to even suggest sensible solutions?
England and Wales are simply too racist now for the opposition to even suggest sensible solutions?
It looks that way, yes.
The fact that the supposedly pro-union party can’t push a pro-union policy and has chosen to ape the right’s racist policies shows that there is pretty much no hope for England and Wales.
+1
the modern left, with it’s focus on climate change, sustainability, universal basic income, MMT and harnessing automation for the benefit of the common good is pretty much the only political and economic movement which is seriously looking to the future. Whereas stablishment centrism is stuck in a never ending downward spiral of outdated economic dogma and political cowardice, with the result being a resurgence of populist identity politics. No problem was ever solved by keeping things the same.
So true.
Centrism delivers us to this point in time - basically propping up more extreme right-wing governments. Because centrism just looks like sensible politics after Trump and Johnson but keeps the free-market mindset intact. Neoclassical economic thinking that supports the status quo, but tinkers at the seems for actual redistribution.
The Guardian and its columnists are totally blind to this. Even yesterday - Polly Toynbee's laughable article about Boris Johnson calling an election sooner rather than later!
As an aside. The Government has issued over 300 billion in Covid spending (probably closer to 400 billion) - new money creation. With 400 billion of Q/E which effectively chops the *borrowing to zero.
Labour in 2019 election campaign pledged to spend 400 billion over (I think) over 1-2 terms - and they were torn apart by every possible establishment rag. Not affordable, blah, blah etc.
The Tories have done that in one year without breaking a sweat.
The money is there to do better things with society and the economy. Not just in a pandemic.
*the Government doesn't need to borrow to spend. Please tell Anneliese Dodds.
But... people have freedoms, rights and protections isn't "centrism", is it? Putting up barriers to people moving across borders isn't a cause for the Left... is it? If it is, perhaps I should recognise I'm not left wing... I couldn't care less if my fellow worker was born in the UK or not. This might well make me a dinosaur... so be it. I want my government to agree with other governments to allow the lives of people to extend beyond national borders... and I think that then benefits us all, even those people who never leave the county they were born in.
If you can't persuade the British public that, for example, musicians should be able to tour Europe using visa waiver... or that Hospitals shouldn't have to pay extra fees to employ a Portuguese nurse.... your chance of persuading them to go for a universal basic income... or to ignore misplaced Conservative language about the country being like a business, or worse still a household, when it comes to its finances... are slim to nil.
As an aside. The Government has issued over 300 billion in Covid spending (probably closer to 400 billion) – new money creation. With 400 billion of Q/E which effectively chops the *borrowing to zero.
Labour in 2019 election campaign pledged to spend 400 billion over (I think) over 1-2 terms – and they were torn apart by every possible establishment rag. Not affordable, blah, blah etc.
They've done it because they had absolutely no option. Failure to do so would have led to the complete implosion of the economy, hundreds of thousands of deaths or possibly/probably both
Over the next 10 - 20 years, we'll get to see just how 'affordable' it was as we see increased taxation (for the little people, not the rich, obvs) and rounds of austerity that will make Cameron's efforts look like some minor tinkering
People shredded labour because they recognised that what they were proposing was unaffordable. It was then. It still is. We're going to be picking up the bill for this public borrowing for decades to come.
Nothing about the spending of the last 12 months can be described as 'affordable' and if it wasn't for an unprecedented global pandemic there is no way on earth any sane government would commit to that level of borrowing*
But well done for highlighting why nobody trusts 'the left' with the countries finances
* how much of that money was funnelled into the pockets of their mates is another issue entirely
*the Government doesn’t need to borrow to spend. Please tell Anneliese Dodds.
You either borrow or you print money. Their are huge financial implications for both. To depend otherwise is just ridiculous.
Centrism, Right-wing, and Left-wing have nothing to do with Freedom of Movement. You will find supporters and opponents in all political factions.
However, because it doesn't belong to any individual political leaning it's often painted as being a right, left, or centrist policy depending on who you want to paint as being the worst or best.
Generally, the only thing your strength of feeling on restricting FoM correlates with is how racist you are.
People shredded labour because they recognised that what they were proposing was unaffordable. It was then. It still is. We’re going to be picking up the bill for this public borrowing for decades to come.
Sorry binners but you're dead wrong on this. I urge you to read The Deficit Myth, it really will change your mind, and you'll realise that this statement is a bit silly. Debt does not have to be paid back, in fact paying it back is a very bad thing because it sucks money out of the economy causing recession.
Or you could read this...
