You doubt that’s where Starmer is heading? I think it’s pretty clear that’s the direction labour are going,
Daz ... absolutely nobody is suggesting that what we need is some microwave reheated Blairism. It was applicable and neccessasry in 1997. The world couldn't be more different now. We've effectively had a right-wing coup, facilitated by the left, for a start
And it is not 'pretty clear' where Starmer is going at all.
What we are saying is that some pragmatism is required and the left needs to let go of some of its hobby-horses that completely repel most voters
You seem to be like a lot on the left where nothing short of the overthrowing of capitalism will and the establihment of some mad money-press economy will suffice
Here's the news:
NOBODY WILL VOTE FOR THAT! NOBODY!!
In a country as (small c) conservative as the UK, nobody is interested in 'to the baracades!' nonsense. Nobody apart from a small band of nutters want a revolution. The level of most peoples political activism is tutting over a Daily Express headline.
Corbyn tested it to destruction. Starmer is trying to repair the damage from that absolutely disasterous experiment. Yet you think that throwing at the electorate something even more extreme than grandads will yield an electoral majority
Mate, much as I love you, and I know that deep down you've missed waiting at the top of hills for me this year, you're absolutely off your napper!
You seem to be like a lot on the left where nothing short of the overthrowing of capitalism will and the establihment of some mad money-press economy will suffice
Where have I suggested overthrowing capitalism? I'm not talking about showering people with printed money either. If I had to pick one policy/strategy this would be it: Use MMT based economics to provide a job guarantee provided by the govt and make them green community based jobs to combat climate change as part of a green new deal. That's it. Full employment in a capitalist system using economics which already exists focused on fighting climate change and eliminating poverty. If a labour govt can't aim for that then there's not much point in them.
Well there is a point to them, isn’t there?
Namely the absolutely enormous yawning chasm between the politics we have at present and the one you’re advocating
If we can get us on the way towards the latter and further away from the former then that’s progress.
If you printed your proposal out and stood on it as a manifesto, you’d lose your deposit in most seats. As the Green Party demonstrates at every general election.
A massive amount of people in this country couldn’t give a shit about ending poverty or combatting climate change, what they actually want is a BMW X6 with a private number plate, a month in the Bahamas and to bring back hanging
NOBODY WILL VOTE FOR THAT! NOBODY!!
Well said indeed sir.
I am Labour to the core but like most decent working people I despise lefty do-gooder types and anyone who spouts socialist six form claptrap. Anyone with a half brain cell realises that Lady Thatcher and Sir Winston were the greatest leaders we ever had.
What we need is our own Farage. A smasher, a warrior. Somebody to defend our great nation from the lefties, from hordes of immigrants and Asian rape gangs. Somebody who loves our monarchy, who supports our brave boys and defends white culture.
That champion is Sir Kee Kee Starmer KCB!!!
Lets get our country back!!!
I think that probably sounded clever to you. Are you pleased with your effort?
**** me, even by STW standards, that's boak worthy.
Namely the absolutely enormous yawning chasm between the politics we have at present and the one you’re advocating
The politics I'm advocating is neither extreme or particularly radical. The fact that you think it is only confirms how far towards the right we've travelled. Actually that policy aim I just mentioned isn't too different from what Biden is proposing in the US. If you're right then does that mean the UK is now further right than the US? Should we just accept that?
If we can get us on the way towards the latter and further away from the former then that’s progress.
So the sum total of labour amitions is to be slightly better than the tories? And we all wonder why labour never win.
A massive amount of people in this country couldn’t give a shit about ending poverty or combatting climate change
I couldn't disagree more. Those who have the luxury of worrying about it care very much about climate change. Those who are under 30 care about it more than anything else. Those who are struggling with other issues want to see politicians listening to them too. The issues of poverty and climate change are not mutually exclusive, and the solutions are the same. But first labour need to grow a pair and start making the case for the alternative.
But first labour need to grow a pair and start making the case for the alternative.
That is almost exactly what I said about FoM but you said that it was a 100% sure-fire way to lose the election.
I'm interested in why you think they should be championing a major change in economic direction but not FoM.
The key point has already been made, namely that Labour need to do whatever it takes to win power (even if that includes SKS painting his arse blue and singing ‘Rule Britannia’).
I have been arguing for years for a one term national unity government of labour and lib dems to institute proper constitutional reform including PR
If labour and lib dems and greens each stood aside in 50 seats for the other then they would easily gain a huge majority. Enact proper PR reform and sort out the lords via a constitutional convention and we would never have a tory government again
The politics I’m advocating is neither extreme or particularly radical
You do remember the last election, right?
The electorate, by an absolutely enormous majority, judged an old bloke on his allotment to be a dangerously radical communist who would destroy the country
Good luck with selling your vision to them
The fact that you think it is only confirms how far towards the right we’ve travelled
It’s not about me. I’m a fully paid up, Guardian-reading, metropolitan, liberal snowflake. But I’m aware that unless you can get elected, you can’t change a bloody thing!
If you’re right then does that mean the UK is now further right than the US?
absolutely! Of course it does! As far as government is concerned. The US just voted out their right wing demagogue. We just gave ours a thumping great majority while celebrating the most divisive right wing policy this country has ever seen
That’s the electorate you need to sell your green new deal too. There’s not a cat in hells chance! They had Ed Milliband down as a Marxist
I’m interested in why you think they should be championing a major change in economic direction but not FoM.
Well firstly it's not a major change in economic direction, because the changes in economic management and monetary poliicy have already occured, what I'm arguing for is for that to be focused on providing full employment and combatting climate change, rather than just propping up banks or reacting to crises. FoM on the other hand is a massive change to something that's only just been implemented with a clear mandate behind it. We can either focus on the battles still to be fought, or waste time reenacting the ones that are already lost.
Tjagain, a three-way electoral pact would be excellent and I'm sure the Greens and Lib Dems would be keen, but Labour would never agree if there was even a remote chance they could win a majority. (Look what happened when opposition parties had the opportunity to form a majority government before the last election - hubris and tribalism prevailed.)
I know steelfreak - and it makes me want to bang my head against the wall. Swinson was the main holdout but labour would not move much either.
The prize is so big that its a no brainer. No tory government ever again
It was so infuriating last time tbh, the Lib Dems making so much noise about compromise and withdrawing candidates but I took a little time to look at the seats and there wasn't a single seat they'd done it in where they were getting a worthwhile amount of seats. It was a totally empty gesture and really just saved them money, but it made headlines and gave the impression of working together. Meanwhile Labour got it in the neck for not "reciprocating" but the truth was that the Lib Dems had no shortage of seats where they lose or barely recover their deposit, Labour just didn't, so they couldn't do the same.
(less said about scottish labour the better on compromises...)
As long as the left-ish/centrist-ish/not-tory vote is split and we have fptp it's a massive problem, at teh last election teh lib dems and labour polled almost exactly the same as the Tories. But of course, it's easy to see and easy to say but not so easy for a political party to basically give up seats- and it'd be mostly one way.
Lib Dems, Geens & PC only tried to help each other… they did nothing to help Labour in any seats… but then… it was never going to be reciprocated. Why did Labour put a candidate up against Caroline Lucas? Why put a candidate up against Stephen Lloyd? Against Daisy Cooper? Against Jane Dodds? There can be no effective election pact without Labour.
Kelvin - I agree its a two way process but its still infuriating that they couldn't do it.
Shall we start a racist RW party to take votes off the Tories?
Death Penalty Party?
What about a kick Scotland & Wales out of the UK Party?
Shall we start a racist RW party to take votes off the Tories?
Too late
its still infuriating that they couldn’t do it
Agreed. And I’ve just remembered that I was wrong about the Green Party… they did stand down their candidate in some seats to try and help the Labour candidate. My seat was one! How could I forget. Which makes it even more infuriating that Labour didn’t do likewise in a single seat in the UK to help another opposition party try and reduce the number of Tory MPs returned.
While labour believe they can still win a majority under the current system they are unlikely to enter any electoral pacts. Weirdly, Labour would need to be way down in the polls come the next GE for there to be any chance of a pact. The other problem is that AFAIK there are still many fans of FPTP on the Labour benches.
kelvin
Full MemberWhy did Labour put a candidate up against Caroline Lucas?
Pretty straightforward surely? Lucas was under no threat whatsoever. Labour standing down in that seat would only change who was second from Labour to Tory, it wouldn't gain anything. Meanwhile, it was a Labour seat til 2010 and of course they'd like it back some day.
Basically it's a total red herring, it's not the sort of seat you can expect parties to surrender and it's also not the sort of seat where there's any gain from it. There were in fact no seats in the whole UK where Labour could stand down and help the Greens to a victory.
But the whole "unite to remain" campaign was a red herring. it wasn't about anyone helping anyone else, it was about generating headlines. Changed nothing and wasn't supposed to. Did save a few deposits. It was pretty harmless too, to be fair- there was a small risk of it helping tories into a couple of labour seats but in the end the numbers involved were too small.
And the other candidates I mentioned…?
And, if you are a Labour politician that doesn’t value the contributions of Lucas to parliament, and think that unseating her with a no mark with a red rosette is something to pesue… you are exactly the kind of tribal politician damaging this country, in my personal opinion.
Lloyd in Eastbourne- would have made no difference.
Cooper in St Albans- would have made no difference.
Dodds in Radnorshire- would have made no difference.
Bit of a theme emerging tbh. I mean, these 4 seats that you thought worth highlighting would have been perfect candidates by the Lib Dem and Green standard of "find a seat where it'll make no difference then make a lot of noise about it". But that's not what's needed, no matter how much it impressed you in 2019.
Lloyd in Eastbourne- would have made no difference.
Cooper in St Albans- would have made no difference.
Dodds in Radnorshire- would have made no difference.
They only made “no difference” when you know the count after the vote… they were all seats where the Tories stood to gain because of a spilt vote.
But that’s not what’s needed, no matter how much it impressed you in 2019.
I wasn’t “impressed”, I was utterly depressed by the inability of the opposition parties to fight the Tories instead of each other.
Try being in Scotland when we have a defacto labour / tory non aggression pact and where tories and labour work together to freeze out the SNP - despite SNP and labour policy being so close!
Its disgusting.
Very sad watching labour bury their own ambitions because they lack the courage to fight for what they want.
https://twitter.com/stephaniekelton/status/1350870607886491655?s=21
And here we go again.
Most voters do indeed think that balancing the government books is exactly the same as balancing the books at home. So what should we do? I know..... lets tell them they're wrong. That always goes down well
After all, thats why we haven't got a labour government now, isn't it? Because the voters got it wrong? Labour 'won the argument' didn't they? You can quibble about the definition of the word 'winning', obviously, but it all went well.
Yet again: lets deal the world we've got, rather than the one we'd like it to be
The most successful electoral strategy of the last decade has been the 3 word slogan.
Anyway, the next election is 4 years away. Meanwhile, back in UK Toryland, economic theories aren't really at the forefront of a lot of peoples minds:
https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1351075346683211777?s=20
So what should we do?
Be honest with them, show leadership, help them to understand why everything is f****. The root problem in the UK is the dishonesty and mendacity of our politicians and the utter cowardice shown by those who are in a position to do something about it. The number one politicial opinion of the vast majority of the population is 'they're all the same'. You seem to think that's something that can't, or shouldn't be changed.
economic theories aren’t really at the forefront of a lot of peoples minds
It's not theory, it's reality, and UC is perfect example of something which would be easily affordable if only politicians were honest with the public. FGS man read that book!
Which is exactly what starmer is doing today. forcing a commons vote on extending the UC £20 uplift.
Plus he keeps hammering Johnson and co on competence.
this is how its done - make the image of the tories as both cruel and incompetnet and keep on hammering that line until it becomes a part of their public image.
labour cannot get pinned down on specific policies now nor give the tory press any ammo.
this is how its done – make the image of the tories as both cruel and incompetnet and keep on hammering that line until it becomes a part of their public image.
But carry on with the fundamental mistruth that undermines almost everything else? The publc instinctively know they're being lied to. They may not understand the mechanics but they can clearly see that when it's required, the govt can always find the money to do whatever it wants, and that reducing UC, or not supporting people through lockdowns are political choices, not economic ones. This is why they have such a low opinion of politicians, and Starmer is doing very little to change that.
The publc instinctively know they’re being lied to.
Thanks for the laugh!
I agree with much of your post, but the idea that the voters have natural bullshit detectors is completely at odds with experience since the 2008 crash.
I was just going to say the same thing TJ.
Today the labour party is doing exactly what the labour party should be doing. It is forcing a vote on reductions in UC.
The Tory's are being 3 line whipped to abstain on it, because they know already what a bunch of heartless ****s they look like with all the coverage of free school meals. They've put out some press release about Labour 'playing politics', but I doubt that's going to wash with many people
https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1351075346683211777?s=20Lecturing people on economics can probably wait for another day
The publc instinctively know they’re being lied to
Erm...
Stop it Binners, you’re reminding me of an alternative reality where Lammy is preparing to speak from no10. Utterly impossible… but that’s the UK I wish we had… or at least were heading towards.
Today the labour party is doing exactly what the labour party should be doing. It is forcing a vote on reductions in UC.
I agree: much more of this, please.
Note though that the vote is non-binding.
Note though that the vote is non-binding.
Yes... because Labour is in opposition.
Thanks for the laugh!
I'm serious. You think the public don't know that the money can always be found when it's needed, but that politicians simply choose not to do it? Do you ever hear people asking where the money comes from for wars, or more topically for covid? They barely batted an eyelid when they handed over the best part of a trillion quid to the banks. Yet when the issue of finding money for public services, benefits etc is raised, the politicians, including labour ones who are supposed to be on the public's side, repeat the lie that there's no money to pay for it. The result is that all politicians are seen as dishonest, self-serving and uninterested in changing anything. Starmer will get nowhere until he changes this view, and he's not going to do that by telling voters there's not enough money to do what is required, because they know deep down that it's a lie.
Yes… because Labour is in opposition.
Some types of motion are binding, so you're not quite right.
Anyway, that wasn't my point, which is that assuming Labour wins the vote, we should keep an eye on what the Tories do in response.
You think the public don’t know that the money can always be found when it’s needed, but that politicians simply choose not to do it?
The public think that, over a period of time, there are restrictions on creating money. They think that money spent now must be paid by the public at some point. It is an oversimplification that is, in my opinion, as good as a lie. If you don't... for want of a better word... "pander" to that concept, and bend it rather than totally dismiss it, while in opposition, you'll stay in opposition. So... talk of "responsible spending", although economic nonsense, has to be part of your language if you want to be elected.
Anyway, that wasn’t my point, which is that assuming Labour wins the vote, we should keep an eye on what the Tories do in response.
The Tories are being 3-line whipped to abstain. Johnson is going with the line that this is labour 'playing politics' as opposed to trying to ensure people have enough money to live on
Johnson is clearly worried that some Tory MPs (most likely the new 'Red Wall' lot) will vote with labour, hence the 3 line whip.
Given where we are at the moment, the Tory's favourite narrative - that those on benefits are all ****less layabouts - is becomign a harder and harder sell. This is now impacting on a much larger part of society as unemployment rockets, and thats before furlough ends and it goes through the roof
which is that assuming Labour wins the vote
They won't win the vote. It is all about pinning the "heartless tories" tag on North of England MPs ready for future elections.
They won’t win the vote. It is all about pinning the “heartless tories” tag on North of England MPs ready for future elections.
Why won't they win the vote? As Binners notes, the Tories are being whipped to abstain.
The Tories are being 3-line whipped to abstain
Wise. The government are likely to be pushed into doing something for low pay voters this year, it might be continuing the small UC bump, or they might find another way... but they don't want the "voted to reduce UC during the pandemic" tag pinned on some key MPs in seats that Labour need to win back.
As Binners notes, the Tories are being whipped to abstain.
I didn't know that when I wrote my post.
Blimey! Me and Daz agree on something
I can guarantee we agree on almost everything, the only difference is how to get there.
In a largely depressing thread, a good reminder that disagreement is mainly about how not what.
I didn’t know that when I wrote my post.
Binners had already mentioned it further up the page.
