Forum menu
I am not a huge John McDonnell fan but I think he hits the nail on the head with this comment :
It is the absolute hollowing out of democracy in the Labour party, which enables a centralisation of power under a self-serving bureaucracy that is effectively out of control, operating with impunity.
Poor decisions are made on strategy and policy from top to bottom because democracy has been stripped out of the party.
Out of touch with Labour voters, out of touch with Labour members, and now out of touch with Labour MPs.
It is extraordinary that a Prime Minister with such a huge majority should be growing ever weaker.
I think we can safely say that Sir Keir Starmer won't be leading Labour into the next general election the question is who will be?
The centrists control of the Labour Party is now so extensive and total that I can't see it making much difference. I guess whoever replaces Starmer might have a bit more charisma, they couldn't possibly have any less, but other than that I can't imagine what might change.
I think we can safely say that Sir Keir Starmer won't be leading Labour into the next general election the question is who will be?
Really? do you think he will resign? There is no easy mechanism to remove him. I think its as near to certain as anything is in politics that Starmer will lead into the next election
He has lost control of the Parliamentary Labour Party over major issues, he is no longer effectively leading and is now reacting to events which are out of his control, despite his massive majority.
His authority has been fatally undermined, and you believe that he will stagger on for another 4 years to lead Labour into a historic defeat?
You seem to think that Starmer might sack his Chancellor, when was the last time a Prime Minister sacked their Chancellor and didn't resign themselves a short while later?
A lucrative post prime ministerial career beckons for Sir Keir Starmer, former prime ministers are always rewarded after their stint ends in failure, it's about contacts. Do you honestly think that Starmer will want to hang around any longer than he has to?
Why might that be........ because of deeply held "convictions"? 🤣
The "U-turns" are exactly what is required for him to be able to stay on 'till the next election. The press might get all excited about "losing control", but the reality is as long as Labour MPs and the members they speak with can effectively modify government policy ("democracy" if you like), he'll be allowed to stay on.
Out of touch with Labour voters, out of touch with Labour members, and now out of touch with Labour MPs.
I thought Starmer and the Labour party now represented the country as a whole not just the left wing of Labour? I'd imagine no matter who follows Starmer will have another crack at reforming the welfare state.
These aren't u-turns - they are last minute rabid panics as they have been dragged kicking and screaming to this situation.
Labour PLP need to grow some bigger balls - hopefully this is the start of that.
Let's be honest this is what happens when your ideology is driven by dim-witted right-wing beliefs. Nothing else. Centrism has exhausted every last argument for its existence in this government. Nothing they touch goes to plan. Bereft of clear thinking and planning not to mention lack of solid useful investment. (Apart form runways in 203)) And genuine absence of pragmatism in response to failing infrastructure and state provision.
Will Starmer go? - I hope so - something will crack sooner or later but in recent years it's taken a lot to get rid of leaders.
What do I expect next from Starmer ? - more of the same - more world-stage posturing. Etc. He hasn't got much left but i think he will limp on to the next disaster. One of the problems is Starmer is using the same bullshit tactics they got elected with to run the country. It doesn't work. What's depressing is they don't need to.
I think it's about to fall apart big-time. It will all hinge on growth through the Summer which I imagine will be as usual a mixed situation.
What an amazing first year for Labour.
(I can remember a few months ago some posters claiming Reform were falling apart before our very eyes - yeah right. They've got their act together unfortunately - banners going up all around my area supporting Reform; capitalising on Labour's appalling trajectory.)
Also tax rises at this point will 1) Not afford the headroom that is claimed 2) will go down like a lead balloon. Taxing has to come after some success to mop up the inflation. I think taxation is a very awkard get-out now. (Not to pay for things BTW.)
It would be very easy for Reeves to go to the BoE - in crisis mode and instruct them to start cutting rates.
That would almsot certainly provide some breathing space and optimism; and reduce interest on payments to the commerical banks on reserves held. Instant headroom.
She's not going to do that though - they like to pretend central banks sit above the power of our democracy. That's nothing but a neoliberal construct - and a political choice.
I'd imagine no matter who follows Starmer will have another crack at reforming the welfare state.
And further changes to PIP. The Conservative/LibDem government set it up with the aim of better targeting those that need help, but it is currently failing to offer enough support for some of those that most need it, and making them jump through hoops to keep it. The changes to improve this are still going ahead in this bill (an end to repeat assessments for many of those whose situation can't improve for example). But that leaves the problems at the other end... the PIP net is getting wider and wider, while also still allowing many in need to fall through it. The criteria will need changing. The changes proposed (and now dropped) seemed ill thought out, and (in my opinion) would have made working life more difficult for those that need support to work (and live). The current situation would also be considered ill thought out if presented in a bill today. Improvements are needed. The starting point of preventing the rise in the PIP budget shouldn't be the starting point... it should be about reducing the cost for the state overall... which could well mean MORE support for some... and, yes... less or zero support for some others that were never expected to be included when PIP was set up.
They're not interested in actual reform of benefits to make things better - they're penny pinching to try and create bogus fiscal headroom. That's the plan. There is no other game in town. 5bn a year eventually. Treasury brain again.
Reform is simply cutting in this instance or as/was when they sat on their arses for 9 months simply waiting for this to unfold.
The tax rises in the autumn are inevitable now, it was foolish to box themselves with the promise not to raise them in the first place- tho I get why because the RW press would have crucified them for it.
I think the fractures with the labour party will be hard to heal after this.
Any tax-rises in a depressed growth environment will amost certainly remove more money from the economy and feed even more contraction.
(Not against tax rises but they should be carefully thought through. And timed seperately form spending choices.) Addressing fiscal rules is the big-win here.
What Labour need to do now is the same when they came to power - run a bigger deficit to allow a positive balance into the private sector and expand the economy through well-thought out spending. They can then look at taxation when it ramps up.
If we stick to the same path - we will just simply keep getting these awful results.
What Labour need to do now is the same when they came to power - run a bigger deficit to allow a positive balance into the private sector and expand the economy through well-thought out spending. They can then look at taxation when it ramps up.
But that will cause the markets to panic and inflation to surge, interests rates will shoot up again, people taking out & renewing mortgages will be punished and, as ever those at the bottom will be hit hardest by rising prices & Reform will lap it up
I could have sworn there were a few Ernie but a quick glance at the lists maybe not. But then when has a PM with a huge majority resigned after a year or two? thatcher had a decent majority IIRC but had been in power for years. Ditto Blair
I could have sworn there were a few Ernie
A few what ?
Edit : Ah you mean this ?
when has a PM with a huge majority resigned after a year or two?
How about Liz Truss? She didn't last a year but she resigned soon after sacking her Chancellor despite her huge majority.
Boris Johnson lasted a couple of years but also had to resign despite a huge majority.
chancellors that had been sacked re your post above
I still think Starmer will go for a reset at some point. Ditch Reeves and Cooper
chancellors that had been sacked
But you mentioned Blair, he didn't sack Gordon Brown! And Thatcher didn't sack John Major.
Prime Ministers tend to be on very dodgy ground if they are forced to sack their Chancellors, it massively undermines their authority.
2 differnt points. I was aknowledging that your point was correct about chancellors
2nd point that prime ministers in power with big majorities do not go in their first couple of years and those two PMs were the only ones I can think of that resigne3d with decent majorities at all and that was only after years in power
I do not think there is any chance/Starmer will not lead labour into the next election
I still think Starmer will go for a reset at some point. Ditch Reeves
Looks like its already happened if Reeves crying during PMQs is any sort of indicator. Politics is a cruel game, having to sit there on national tv while your boss signals the end of your political career must be a tad stressful. I'd have some sympathy if it wasn't for the fact that she was prepared to plunge hundreds of thousands of people into poverty in order to keep a load of bankers and bond traders in the city happy.
I feel sorry for Reeves and Starmer, trying to get sensible things done only to be shot down by their own party of delusional Corbynites, clueless student union politicians and those who think that money grows on trees. The idea of Rayner taking over is hilarious and terrifying in equal measure - that would seal the deal for Reform. A full on fiscal meltdown is the only thing that will save us now. I'm quite looking forward to it actually. It would just be good if we can avoid sacrificing the environment in the process.
Not sure if she was crying because she may lose her job or because she can see the plan Starmer and her had come up with for running the country was clearly falling apart rapidly.
A full on fiscal meltdown is the only thing that will save us now. I'm quite looking forward to it actually. It would just be good if we can avoid sacrificing the environment in the process.
I hope you don't go bankrupt and nearly lose your house like I did in the 2008 recession - but hey, ho it will be fun to see other people lose theirs.
Yeah because the best decisions are always made during financial meltdowns.
****.
On a more serious note about Reeves, it beggars belief that Starmer and/or his cabinet colleagues allowed/required Reeves to attend PMQs when she was in that state. Now on top of being seen as managerially and politically incompetent, they also look like callous ruthless bullies who are happy to see a close colleague undergo some sort of mental breakdown on live television. If they are happy to do this to someone they work with closely, we can assume they will show no more compassion or sympathy for the public at large who are subject to their ill-thought out policies.
What I find hugely frustrating is that most economists would say that this is the time to invest ie deficit spend. Reeves is so terrified of the tory press and so bound by treasury brain that she will not do it. Her fiscal rules are absurd. ~with the huge majority they could easily ride out any storm and be reaping the benefits later on.
All she is doing is killing growth
I see Reeves has been given the full backing of no10. Normally thats a precursor to a sacking 🙂
All she is doing is killing growth
100%
The average wage earner (me included) is battening down the hatches and not spending any more than they have too.
The whole personal tax allowance threshold* is freeze is baffling too. The vast majority wouldn't put the extra they got if it was increased in their savings account, they'd go out and spend it on stuff and hospitality so the government would get their tax take that way through VAT and corporation tax.
(*I know it was a Tory idea).
But that will cause the markets to panic and inflation to surge, interests rates will shoot up again, people taking out & renewing mortgages will be punished and, as ever those at the bottom will be hit hardest by rising prices & Reform will lap it up
A 'Reverse Truss', where Rayner spends rather than cuts, but the bond market reacts the same way
Dazh, you're assuming that whatever triggered her didn't occur as she entered the chamber, that it was known about by everyone before... I think it's far more likely that she was hit with something at the start of PMQs, be it a text message or something said to her.
I think it's far more likely that she was hit with something at the start of PMQs, be it a text message or something said to her.
Well if it was a personal thing unrelated to her job she should have taken her leave like any normal person would in their job. Are we seriously suggesting that MPs/govt ministers are not afforded the same level of compassion and understanding as any other worker would expect? It's not like she was doing anything, she could have quietly left the commons and nothing would have been disrupted. The fact she hung around in the full knowledge that her breakdown was being broadcast live on tv suggests it wasn't personal.
Again... if she was triggered at the start of PMQs, what could anyone else have done? She could have chosen to walk out, yes, but no one's going to give her a quiet tap on the shoulder mid PMQs and ask her to leave. You're extrapolating wildly to suggest that her behaviour is a sign of a failure of compassion towards her by her team, and even more so towards anyone/everyone else.
But that will cause the markets to panic and inflation to surge, interests rates will shoot up again, people taking out & renewing mortgages will be punished and, as ever those at the bottom will be hit hardest by rising prices & Reform will lap it up
A 'Reverse Truss', where Rayner spends rather than cuts, but the bond market reacts the same way
apart from thats not so. There is plenty of room for extra spending in the economy and it would not cause that reaction if its going into things that would actually grow the economy and increase wealth. Its very different from borrowing to give huge tax cuts to the wealthy where that borrowed money creates nothing. It does not have to be funded from borrowing anyway - the government can just create money as they did in the pandemic and to save the bankrupt banks
Again... if she was triggered at the start of PMQs
She was crying before PMQs started. She could have easily excused herself at any time, even during PMQs. One of her colleagues could have helped her. But no, they all decided it was best if she sat there and broke down on live tv.
suggest that her behaviour is a sign of a failure of compassion towards her by her team
Too right I am. Politics should be exempt from normal professional behaviours in the workplace. If one of my team attended a meeting in that state I'd stop the meeting and attend to what was going on with them, then send them home or allow them to continue in a safe place.
But no, they all decided it was best if she sat there and broke down on live tv.
Of course they did. 🙄
Are we seriously suggesting that MPs/govt ministers are not afforded the same level of compassion and understanding as any other worker would expect?
Of course they're not! Nowhere near! It's a completely ****ing toxic workplace, totally family unfriendly, where bullying is just part of the game, and it comes with the added benefit that if you step out of line you'll have the tabloids hacking your childrens phones and going through your bins, justifying themselves by saying that you put yourself in the public eye so you're fair game.
What I find hugely frustrating is that most economists would say that this is the time to invest ie deficit spend. Reeves is so terrified of the tory press and so bound by treasury brain that she will not do it. Her fiscal rules are absurd. ~with the huge majority they could easily ride out any storm and be reaping the benefits later on.
All she is doing is killing growth
Reeves' primary concern is the bond markets, they did for Truss & Kwarteng and theyll do for Starmer & Reeves if inflation & interest rates rise again
& they really wont differentiate between borrowing and tax cuts, especially when Trump is going to send his own bond markets into the stratosphere when his bonkers bill gets passed
the fiscal rules may be daft but the minute she ditches them prices will start to rise
It's a completely ****ing toxic workplace, totally family unfriendly, where bullying is just part of the game
As Badenoch made clear at PMQs today. The standard technique of attacking someone without a right to reply, making her negative questions into rhetorical attacks. Not sure Reeves could walk out while those attacks were being made on her... how would that have looked? A no win situation for her.
What I find hugely frustrating is that most economists would say that this is the time to invest ie deficit spend. Reeves is so terrified of the tory press and so bound by treasury brain that she will not do it. Her fiscal rules are absurd. ~with the huge majority they could easily ride out any storm and be reaping the benefits later on.
All she is doing is killing growth
Reeves' primary concern is the bond markets, they did for Truss & Kwarteng and theyll do for Starmer & Reeves if inflation & interest rates rise again
& they really wont differentiate between borrowing and tax cuts, especially when Trump is going to send his own bond markets into the stratosphere when his bonkers bill gets passed
the fiscal rules may be daft but the minute she ditches them prices will start to rise
so why did this not happen during the pandemic when huge sums were pumped into the economy? Or the huge sums created to support the bankrupt banks? the huge sums pumped into the economy in the 2008 crisis?
the huge sums pumped into the economy in the 2008 crisis?
I have absolutely no intention of defending the concept of fiscal rules which was invented by Gordon (no return to boom & bust) Brown but inflation wasn't the issue during the credit crisis, in fact deflation was the problem, hence the talk of helicopter money.
the fiscal rules may be daft but the minute she ditches them prices will start to rise
What?
The 'price level' is pretty much determined by interest rates - with which they sit relatively high now. High interest rates put more money in the pockets of people with wealth - this contributes to inflation. It's mostly ignored for obvious reasons.
Fiscal rules are in no way evidence based and not linked to controlling 'prices.'
They're made up.
We had vrtually no inflation for years - whilst plenty of money was being put into the economy.
Japan has one of the lowest interest rates and lowest inflation rates.
Helicopter money has nothing to do with regular government spending - that is a hand-out, government spending is 'regular' spending via a deficit that takes place every single day in the US, UK, NZ, JPN, AUS and Canada.
Helicopter money and printing money gets conflated by the 'right' mostly to try and make a bogus argument over restricting actual regular/daily money issuance that the government needs to provision itself.
FWIW I'm never talking about helicopter money in the same breath as government spending. And one is not MMT and is most likely inflationary.
If you want a country where we keep decaying for the sake of the fantastical OBR then lets keep those fiscal rules.
Reeves' primary concern is the bond markets, they did for Truss & Kwarteng and theyll do for Starmer & Reeves if inflation & interest rates rise again
Maybe the primary concern should be the public purpose?
Bond markets are an unnecessary construct of neoliberal thinking. We don't need them for the government to provision itself. Bond markets also can only happen with issuance of government money and government bonds. The bond market doesn't automatically occur. It's a political choice by a government. They don't have to issue bonds - but if they didn't then the same wealthy moaners would lose out wouldn't they?
Interest rates don't automatically rise either. They are set by a government owned and 'controlled' central bank.
Shift the power back to government and deliver for public purpose. If you think what happened and was corrected very quickly by the BoE during the Truss debacle was bad compared to the state of public services - then I'm sorry you've been ignoring the real issues.
I mean currency flucatation (of a floating currency) - versus lack of hospitals and homeless people etc. Where is your moral compass?
I mean, there's currently a minor wobble over the GBP/USD - it's dropped a bit to prices not seen since... last week (because there's speculation over what is happening with Reeves.) The media are having a big shit because of a tiny drop in the pound. BTW it floats - it goes up and and down by design. For every seller there's a buyer.
The media want you to believe this is terrible news whilst at the same time cheer-leading for devastating cuts for people on benefits.
(I do feel a bit sorry for Reeves with all this pressure but she has carved out this menacing irresponsible fiscal logic, and character - for herself with not a minute of understanding the needs of the real economy.)
Labour are bunch of utter fools if they thought kow-towing the 'needs' of the city over the suffering frustrated electorate was a good plan.
The government are in disarray and it's self-inflicted.
Much as I hate to agree with Rone on economics 🙂 he is right in that the fiscal rules are arbitrary in that they are self imposed. There is no other foundation for them apart from what Reeves thinks is right. By applying them so rigidly she has boxed herself into a corner.
Inflation and interest rates are at a fairly low point historically and most inflation is linked to external factors not factors within the UK economy
Labour are bunch of utter fools if they thoughtkow-towing the 'needs' of the city over the suffering frustrated electorate was a good plan.
I was listening to R4 PM yesterday and Evan Davies was vox-popping people in Chester about the govt. Pretty much every single person was complaining that Labour hadn't done anything for working people, that the system wasn't working, that govt isn't working. The only thing that does seem to be working is the ability of the rich to get ever richer, and that's a result of govt policy. This is all a direct result of the govt allowing 'the markets' (aka bankers, bond traders and financial institutions) to dictate fiscal and monetary policy. We've essentially ceded control of taxation and govt spending to self-interested millionaires and billionaires, and then we wonder why everything is falling apart.
For sure Daz.
Somewhere along the way real problems have been usurped by the constant bilge supplied by nearly every mainstream economic journo (literally this morning it was front and centre of JoB's show) - that we should all in live in fear of the market lending the government money so we should always do what they want.
(I mean FFS it's in your face that the Bank of England creates all currency for spending. It's literally on a note. But we've ignored that totally and simplified what government borrowing/bond issuance is to the lowest daily-mail version of events using simple innacurate terms like debt and borrowing.)
It really is the most obscenely regressive and misunderstood vantage point. Sadly most people just repeat what they've heard.
It's a cul-de-sac then because the markets 'needs' will simply become wider and wider as it consumes the threat from any government to fix the mess that is unfolding.
I said a while back the misinterpretation surrounding Truss will set the precedent for a nervous Labour government and backfire.
If you want a factually simple version of events - just think of government spending as nothing more than a balance sheet where all assets clear all liabilities to zero and the national debt the score-keeping part of that without the asset part in the private sector attached to it.
Remember the city is entirely parasitic and needs the government to supply it with money and the legal framework to do what it needs to do, that is suck money and talent away from the rest of the economy.
The City can't exist with government. Despite what right-wingers tell you. Markets don't naturally appear and money/taxation itself preceeds formal markets.