I had high hopes for Starmer however i am not sure he has the team or the right messages (yet) he should be attacking on multiple fronts starting with the brexit shit show (aaking about SMEs Fishing Farming Manufacturing Transportation) and in parallel detailing investment in community's (detailed plans) improving education and rapidly increasing minimum wage and tax plans for the big corporate avoiders. Talk about UBI and tax breaks for SMEs talk about 50/50 funding for investment. Build social housing build infrastructure- borrow what ever it takes.
The Defiicit Myth is a bestseller
I bet it sold 0.00000005% of Jordan’s last biography and most of the people who bought it did so to have a bookcase full of clever looking books behind them on Zoom calls and never actually read it.
Mate... seriously... when all this is over, you really need to get out more. You’ve been spending too much time in Hebden Bridge 😉
This valley rules. Have we got our own flag yet?
Mate… seriously… when all this is over, you really need to get out more. You’ve been spending too much time in Hebden Bridge 😉
I think you underestimate people. They almost certainly don't lie awake at night thinking about government finances or crazy political ideas like I do, but if you ask most people they instinctively know what's going on. I've lost count of the times I've heard people say 'they can always find the money for tax cuts', or 'they can always find the money for wars', 'they can always fiind the money to give themselves a pay rise' etc. They also have a natural sense of fairness, and know when they're being screwed over. The reason they say all politicians are the same is because they're more aware of the similarities between the tories and labour than we admit. People really aren't as stupid as everyone on here thinks they are.
I particularly like this one... stood the test of time
Capitalists can buy themselves out of any crisis, so long as they make the workers pay
Vladimir Ilich Lenin
Time to raise the barricades brexity people, time to fill up the Molotov cocktails, time to storm the palaces of Westminster... i shall sit and sip a handcrafted IPA (at a safe distance) and wait for the Police to turn up.
People really aren’t as stupid as everyone on here thinks they are.
Yet here we are, having left the EU in as shambolic fashion as ecxpected, with a Tory government with a massive majority, a third rate journalist as PM and a cabinet full of complete muppets. All of which the people of this country voted for
All of which the people of this country voted for
43% voted tory on a 67% turnout, equalling 28% of eligible voters. That's by no means 'the people of this country'.
The second the labour party do that, the entire media will shout ‘MAGIC MONEY TREE’ at them and absolutely everyone will buy that.
We all know that the Tories have found a forest of money trees, but they’re using it to funnel it all into the pockets of their mates. As with the banking crisis, it’ll be straight back to austerity by the end of the year.
And if you try and explain your economic policies to your average member of the public, this is how it will be received…
Thing is with stw, it's always late to the party.
All the macro finances that DaZ talks up are happening now, and have been in play since the early 70s.
It's always a question of education. The Tories are happily doing what they do and lying about everything. They get an easy ride whilst Labour are just becoming a bad cover version.
Sunak saying the government doesn't have some magical money source. Lie. It does - in its own words, it owns the BoE. It's on the BoE website.
This stuff has to be challenged.
Starmer is not doing that, he's trying to battle on Tory terms. It's not going to wash. Labour didn't push back on the financial crash of 2008 hard enough. Because they didn't get it either.
There is zero point in Labour trying to look fiscally prudent. It will be demolished by the press.
Things definitely won't be getting better unless Labour take the ball and run with it.
https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1362377275380015108?s=19
https://twitter.com/bpolitics/status/1362444397439291396?s=19
This is what you call progress Starmz.
https://twitter.com/ptcherneva/status/1362469383705161729?s=19
Her book is good too.
43% voted tory on a 67% turnout, equalling 28% of eligible voters. That’s by no means ‘the people of this country’
Yeah, the people who can’t be arsed voting are really on a higher intellectual plain
Cut it whichever way you want, we’re living in a nation where the majority are ****-wits
Looking at the present shitshow I don’t know how you could conceivably argue otherwise
Good luck with your mission to educate the populace on economic theories. Maybe try not use any buy words. 2 syllables, tops
Good luck with your mission to educate the populace on economic theories. Maybe try not use any buy words. 2 syllables, tops
Not being funny here but pre-2020 everything was all Corbyn's fault not the electorate.
Well while we’re talking about people who are hardly the sharpest tools in the box...
Good luck with your mission to educate the populace on economic theories.
You can explain government finances, deficits and debt with a bottle of beer and two pint glasses. Next time we're down the pub I'll show you 🙂
and have been in play since the early 70s
The 1950s.
But, again, if Labour try to “educate” the voters on macro economics then they will be booted into touch at the next election, as sure as might follows day. The household budget analogy for the finances of a country is bullshit, but it is all that a huge chunk of voters “understand”… or think they do.
The Defiicit Myth is a bestseller and the ideas it and others are promoting are becoming mainstream, especially among the young and educated metropolitan types who will form labour’s new base.
The average voter will not have even heard of that book let alone read it. Take a look at Channel 4 on Monday and you will see a program "$400BN Covid bill, who will pay" which even mentions magic money trees. Even the people making TV programs (that many more people will watch that read that book you keep on about) don't get it and are still selling the old ideas of national debt.
People really aren’t as stupid as everyone on here thinks they are.
They are probably even more stupid than I think they are. I include my own family members in that. Ask them something, get some answer that they have got from somewhere, ask them more about it and they haven't got a clue why they think like that or can explain any details at all about it. The phrase "common sense" tends to get used a lot in any explanations...
& that is why Labour need to point out at every opportunity the Tories wasteful/corrupt spending. Forget high economics, the Tories are happy to lie, have a supportive media and can't be rumbled on it
Also... even if Labour could replace one over simplistic model of economics with another one in the public's mind... they'd still then have to deal with the issue that the voters would then cling to the analogies used to explain it in its purest form... reality never fits any single model. We'd go from "the government credit card is maxed out, so we can't afford to help them" to, "the government can just print money, so why am I being asked to pay taxes to help them ?!"
“the government can just print money, so why am I being asked to pay taxes to help them ?!”
It's a very good point, and indicative of their instinctive understanding that what they're being told is wrong. There's a huge opportunity for labour to lead a debate about how we organise the economy. Instead of being shackled by the tory lie that the tories are prudent and labour profligate spenders, they should be moving the goalposts. They don't have to talk about economic concepts like MMT, instead all they need to do is insist that the money used to bail out banks and corporations could be used to bail out the people, and that our economy would be healthier and more equal as a result. People will listen to that, because no one else is saying it, and it has the benefit of being true.
And back to Starmer speech. This is a pretty brutal take on it. It doesn't even stand up to mild social-democratic standards let alone anything more progressive.
https://tribunemag.co.uk/2021/02/starmers-speech-failed-even-on-its-own-terms
They don’t have to talk about economic concepts like MMT, instead all they need to do is insist that the money used to bail out banks and corporations could be used to bail out the people, and that our economy would be healthier and more equal as a result.
I agree.
And all the Tory press have to do is insinuate that the 'fairness' will be applied unevenly to the 'undeserving' and/or tanned of skin - and enough of the population will vote for something to the right of Genghis Khan.
instead all they need to do is insist that the money used to bail out banks and corporations could be used to bail out the people, and that our economy would be healthier and more equal as a result.
They would be laughed at, and well you know it. Only this morning the BBC were insisting the the Govt were "borrowing" 4.4Bn for COVID relief. Any attempt by the opposition party to frame Govt spending in any other way than everyone "understands" it would be handing the Tories an open target for any number of accusations of "Open cheque-books" or "Lack of financial reality" or indeed "The magic money tree". and the rightwing press would gleefully take it up, and Labour would be labelled forever with the tag, of unrealistic budgets and it'd come back again and again and again...regardless of the truth of how money, debt and govt spending are actually created and used.
These are the rules of the Two party system: The Tories can't be trusted with the NHS, Labour Govts spends too much money, and so on and on. It's a game with rules that are played by both sides. Labour only win when 1. people are comfortably off enough to think the "excess" spending won't effect them, or 2. the cracks in society under a Tory govt have become so huge keeping them in power is too much for even the centre right. If neither of those two things are occurring there will be a Tory govt in power.
If neither of those two things are occurring there will be a Tory govt in power.
I don't disagree with that. But if we're destined to have perpetual tory government then there's nothing to lose by setting out the alternative. 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. Especially when those changes represent the truth, and the status quo is built on a foundation of lies.
Starmer is not doing that, he’s trying to battle on Tory terms.
Worse than that, he's battling on Tory terms that they themselves have abandoned. It's making him look hopelessly out of touch.
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.
