MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
That would be Labour’s current self-imposed fiscal rules. You’re simply choosing to ignore them. The irony is they’re built on a mythical misunderstanding of economic data and forecasting.
A government, made up of hundreds of experts, thousands of civil servants and so on have put this plan into place, nothing has happened yet to prove it's good or bad, but if you could post another Richard Murphy post about how all governments are wrong and he is right i'll stick around for a few minutes.
I fully expect to hear “But the Tories were in government for 14 years, you can’t expect Starmer to do much in just 4 years”, and “I always said it would take at least 2 terms before Labour could turn things round”.
That's going to keep being preserved in every debate.
For me, the time isn't the argument (though we need to move fast) - it's the intent.
The same people - above will make noises about ideological purity. Etc, not realising Miliband is obtusely not pushing back against the ideological market driven outcomes. Our hands are tied. Blah. Blah.
Yeah he's only the Energy Minister. What's the point of him?
They seriously campaigned on the railings of the price cap. Numpties.
Centrists are the most ideological people in the political system because they are fixated that the market system is the best way of delivering services. Whilst watching it fail and deliver awful results.
Meanwhile, one of my mates is ranting that the government hasn't solved the badger cull issue yet, so the whole PFI, immigrant, economy thing will just have to wait.
A government, made up of hundreds of experts, thousands of civil servants and so on have put this plan into place, nothing has happened yet to prove it’s good or bad, but if you could post another Richard Murphy post about how all governments are wrong and he is right i’ll stick around for a few minutes
You want to show me the data supporting the fiscal rules? Part copied from the Tories and part wonky OBR 5 year forecasting supporting suppression of spending - is a good thing?
Nothing has happened yet?
Example 1)Lord Vader Reeves just threw a load of people under a bus to plug a fabricated hole - that economically was a total lie. And makes no sense with just 5 mins of analysis. Martin Lewis agrees it's shoddy and he's not Richard Murphy.
Example 2) Reeves is going around telling everyone there is no money whilst committing to spending money 3bn per year for Ukraine.
Example 3) Despite campaigning on the price cap crippling everyone - Labour's Ed Miliband was on telly yesterday looking like a rabbit in the headlights claiming there is little he can do. He's only the Energy Minister who sets the rules.
Here's one part of his short term solution:
"reforming the regulator so it is a consumer champion"
Lmfao.
Why would you even defend such mythical bullshit?
Maybe you're are correct nothing has happend yet that is good.
(Last time I checked their were hundreds of people involved in running the country they made a load of bad decisions too.)
Maybe, just maybe, the ‘usual suspects’ are actually waiting for something to actually happen that they can be critical off
You mean something like not scrapping the Tory child benefit cap, for example?
Ed Siliband pretending that things are out of his control when it comes the nation’s energy prices. (The government being the effective ‘regulator’ of Ofgem – doh.)
TBF, Ofgem doesn't control the wholesale energy market, which is the biggest component of consumer bills.
TBF, Ofgem doesn’t control the wholesale energy market, which is the biggest component of consumer bills
Out of a £1717 bill approx £1000 are costs associated with running a business that is to be met by the consumer. I'm guessing those numbers would probably be better under state ownership/big investment.
So the W'sale cost is biggest single component but the delivery model is not efficient or the best way of serving public purpose.
Standing back from the regulator and saying our hands are tied we need more reform is not going to lower prices.
(Labour did campaign hard on the price cap issues at one point - up until power.)
I.E they need to do something else which requires more than G.B Energy.
Tories found a short term solution that was better than doing nothing in terms of real bills.
On top of this you take money away from 10million people - (and means testing is inherently more *costly* bureaucratic and divisive than universal payments) then you have Labour government actually making it more expensive.
The point I'm making is there are many mechanisms by which a government can affect final price.
This is not a good winter set up. It's a mess.
Don't know whether to laugh or cry at this. Someone should remind Miliband that he's no longer in opposition. I'm sure labour advisors think they're being very clever by getting all their ministers to bang on about '14 years of tory govt' but it's going to backfire on them massively. They promised 'change', people voted for it, and now they expect it. Instead though all we're getting is a doubling down on all the shite that the tories provided. It's no wonder the media and corporate establishment were so comfortable with the prospect of a Starmer govt.
https://twitter.com/Ed_Miliband/status/1826867181943947352
I see the love of giving politicians stupid nicknames has returned.
Did it ever go away? Jacob Rees-Mogg, Lee Anderson, Boris Johnson, for example, have all been given stupid nicknames on here. I have always tended to call Boris Johnson Johnson but I am probably an exception.
Nearly £200 of that capped energy bill of 1717 is an external charge for government schemes.
Why?
I would imagine the government could simply pay that itself. And it would not exist at all under state ownership or be nominal.
Let's get this straight - a private company collects a fee for government and the government looks to the private company to be efficient.
It's the worst of both worlds. Another example of finest pragmatism of successive governments.
Remove it. Should be easy for a Labour government.
I see the love of giving politicians stupid nicknames has returned
It's almost as if calling Truss a lettuce/batshit/mad as a box of frogs for days upon end never happened.
I think we're all allowed a bit of tongue-in-cheek humour.
Boris isn't the nickname used on here to describe Johnson
Hmmm... My sister just called (retired, devoted Tory/ possible Reform voter) and was apoplectic about "how the country is now, under Labour".
Amongst all the Reform bingo stuff she is incandescent about:
Winter fuel payments stopping.
She/hubby are now being taxed.
It got a bit heated, I dont talk politics irl unless someone else does first and she did. I wont go into the other stuff but, my God, she idolises Johnson and apparently in the weeks Labour have been in power they have ruined everything...Anyway...
Can anyone fact check me here:
1) They/ she'll still get winter fuel payment as they get Pension Credit, they have no private pension coming in... allegedly...**
1) They are now taxed on their pension (they just had a letter) but isn't that due to falling into a tax band and that was going to happen even if the Tories win as it was their policy?
Cheers.
** I don't agree with this policy in the main, it's a blunt instrument.
If they get taxed on their pension then surely they should not be in receipt of pension credit?.
Tax changes around pensions very likely to be coming, but will likely impact people with sizeable private pensions rather than those on credits.
Thanks guys.
I have the feeling I've not been told everything regarding pensions. I mean, that's fine, it's their business not mine but it obviously contradicts what she is saying.
I really wish she would just not bring politics up. I only really talk about it on here, irl there are better things to chat about! I know where she stands, she knows where I stand. She just can't help herself, it's annoying.
Ah well.
The point I’m making is there are many mechanisms by which a government can affect final price.
Oh sure, I'm not disagreeing. Just pointing out that the wholesale electricity market is an internationally traded commodity. It's in dire need of reform.
For sure Ransos!
So Starmer is reminding everyone how bad everything is and it's going to get worse before it gets better.
That's called inaction.
That's called waiting for growth to appear before you can do anything. That's called targeting the wrong people with your illogical pro-Tory divisive old school benefit removal tactics.
Labour are currently doing nothing that I can see to fix a sodding thing.
It was expected wasn't it? But perhaps most were not expecting it to be quite so appallingly sketchy and ad-hoc.
Genuinely believe they are hoping that the economy just simply delivers something - interest rates will turn in their favour and there will be the odd bit of growth but you need big ideas, you need to steer the ship.
Sentiment is turning very quickly - as I and many others said they don't get that long to make a good start.
There is still acres of time but the Labour party is full of fools so scared of being remotely left-wing or progressive that they don't have the capacity or understanding to push back.
It's all so damn unnecessary.
The argument of getting into power and then turning left was always a figment of the Centrist imagination. But it was a good sell for many.
Reality is Labour are a very weak timid party.
Example 2) Reeves is going around telling everyone there is no money whilst committing to spending money 3bn per year for Ukraine.
Sometimes politicians don't get a choice, which is why loans exist. Small amounts now or the crippling costs of a war in Europe.
Iraq and Afghanistan cost the UK taxpayer £20bn up to 2010, which doesn't take the awful human costs that we're still living with into account
Sometimes politicians don’t get a choice, which is why loans exist. Small amounts now or the crippling costs of a war in Europe
Well it's not the point I'm making.
There is either no money for anything or there is money for the military.
You can't have both.
It's a lie.
Loans - the country doesn't need to borrow what it issues. Just remember the government has its own bank - it doesn't need the private sector for money. And the private sector doesn't create money for the government.
Iraq and Afghanistan cost the UK taxpayer £20bn up to 2010, which doesn’t take the awful human costs that we’re still living with into account
See above.
Tax payers pay for nothing.
No one is arguing you can't have money for things like defence. On the contrary - it's just that there is always money for the military when Reeves is saying there is no money to fix the state infrastructure.
Politicians always have a choice.
Richard Murphy has written on Bylines and his somethingion seems to correlate quite well with what Rone is saying. Article is here
https://eastangliabylines.co.uk/business/economics/rachel-reeves-is-running-a-strange-household/
It's not just me - centre-left supporters such as Professor Danny Blanchflower (ex MPC for the BoE) and previous Starmer endorser are also feeling the frustration.
https://Twitter.com/D_Blanchflower/status/1827688405632761960?t=Pg19pCgp8e_sM5WX0h0xKQ&s=19
He's correct but no idea why he's surprised.
I mean, even James O'Brien was pretty critical of Reeves' fuel payment disaster stroke.
The buyer's remorse is out there.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1828810673398104174
8pts above the old government at rock bottom is pretty awful.
I'm not really impressed with labour so far, despite as a lib dem having gifted them my vote.
They are being really cowardly with making inroads back into the EU, despite the positive meeting with Germany today...it's a step in the right direction so I'll take that, but I think they are still being far too carefull.
They are probably still afraid of the racist backlash, which is a real thing...if it wasnt for UKIP or reform, or whatever they call themselves today, pretty much splitting the racist vote in half (usefull idiots)...labour would not have any sort of comfortable majority, it could have quite easily have been a tory win.
The one thing I am thankfull for is that they are not creating new scandals on a daily basis, which is a nice change from the last government.
The one thing I am thankfull for is that they are not creating new scandals on a daily basis, which is a nice change from the last government.
Give them a chance, they've only been in power 8 weeks!
Well maybe! But they seem a bit more astute than the Conservatives.. Policy issues aside I think they are grown up enough and focused on the job enough for that to not really be an issue.. We will see I guess...
So first they announce higher taxes and more austerity, along with doom-laden messages of everything getting worse, now they're planning to ban smoking in beer gardens. Starmer really is trying to be the most unpopular new prime minister in history isn't he? Funny how they didn't put this one in the manifesto isn't it? Clueless!
Think of the mayhem the last lot managed in any 8 week period. It's so restful now, but then up pops the distraction of beer gardens.
Think of the mayhem the last lot managed in any 8 week period. It’s so restful now, but then up pops the distraction of beer gardens.
It's not about mayhem to be clear on this - it's about utility for people.
That direction couldn't be worse currently.
Elected on change remember.
now they’re planning to ban smoking in beer gardens.
This will tear liberals to shreads. They won't be able to cope.
I genuinely think this government doesn't really have plan - the randomness of ideas on a daily basis.
I can tell you this too - people will have no patience with Labour - hitting the ground with WFA mess has been a PR diaster - tactially a bad move and pragmatically a disaster. (Centrists tell me they will u-turn in the budget. Oh for sure. Reeves' is not in bed with you duck.)
Sensible would have been to hit the ground with something likely to improve things instead of going on about this blasted fictious 'black-hol'e which for all intents and purposes is just from the Tory play-book of clumsy house-hold excuse making for previous goverments. (There's no money left I tell ya.)
What's Starmer scared of ? - he's got a massive majority, and as I've said time and time again he will face criticism no matter what he does, so may as well do the good stuff. This is all just plainly bizarre.
Let's have some good policies please?
Scrap the fiscal rules and start again - part 1.
Sorry a few too rushed typos there. Ugh.
I think you massively underestimate the number of people in this country who never ever go to the pub but still want smoking banned in pub beer gardens, just in case they ever find themselves in one. Maybe when they’ll on holiday, when they’re inevitably ask the bar staff if they can get a pot of tea
Liberty accuses government of ‘disregard for rule of law’ after judges found Braverman’s measures were unlawful
So it turns out that the new Labour Home Secretary now believes that Suella Braverman was correct to appeal against a court's decision that she had acted illegally.
So Suella Braverman is long gone from the Home Office but at least one of her antidemocratic policies lives on, care of Labour.
I am waiting to be told Yvette Cooper has only been Home Secretary for 2 months which is why she hasn't had a chance to take a different position to Suella Braverman's.
Or failing that what a great idea Suella Braverman's policy was after all.
What’s Starmer scared of ? – he’s got a massive majority, and as I’ve said time and time again he will face criticism no matter what he does, so may as well do the good stuff. This is all just plainly bizarre.
Yep, I don't get it either. Making up stuff for why they can't do anything rather than doing stuff. Why doesn't he want to do stuff and why would he want excuses not to do stuff?
And the answer is, he hasn't been in power long enough. Still waiting for those people to tell me when he has been in power long enough.
Let's just get on with it and (re)join the EU.
And the answer is, he hasn’t been in power long enough. Still waiting for those people to tell me when he has been in power long enough
Quite.
But I would answer they've had a long time to know the sinking ship was coming. Where was the preparedness? Where's the trajectory?
I'm not getting good vibes about GBenergy either. The whole programme - pretty quiet.
I'm happy to have the patience. That's not the issue, direction of travel and inertia is.
On another note Thames water will be an interesting one. OFWAT are limiting the bill increase that Thames needs to survive. Based on anything Labour are currently offering that's becoming a real problem.
The reason why Labour are broadly following very similar policies to the Tories is basically exactly the same reason as to why the Tories followed them.
Their goals are broadly the same
What to be kicked out of power?
Besides I would say Labour are heading for a big shock as they're likely to have to deal with way more economic downsides than the Tories.
Also the Tories propped the energy market for a little while. Etc.
Where's those sort of noises?
I think whereas the public give the Tories an easier ride, not so Labour. I think even the most fervent Centrist expected them to be on more solid footing than this
If they screw this term in government up, they’ll not see power again for 20+ year
Devasting that could be a possibility.
Hopefully second half of the term Rach will be ejected back to finance land and something good might eventually happen.
Reeves is more of a problem than Starmer. As I understand it - he knows little about economics and shoved on a course to get up to speed so puts all his faith in Thatcher 2.
Hence back in 2020 Starmer was on video saying government spending is not like a household.
He's simply taking really poor advice this time around.
When GDP doesn't do its thing they will have no choice but to turn the taps on. That is my mine hope. I think it's moderately realistic.
Still waiting for those people to tell me when he has been in power long enough
I've answered this before - obviously just my perspective, though.
6 months - clear direction of travel established if 'operationally' any changes made have yet to have any effect.
12 months - some operational changes made, half of them making a measurable impact on the lives of average Joe and the less fortunate.
I’ve answered this before – obviously just my perspective, though.
Your response is reasonable.
But they've already set a poor trajectory economically. Of their own doing.
By the way the first 100 days is a standard way of measuring the mood music.
That's not the whole picture but it's what's expected.
I’m not getting good vibes about GBenergy either. The whole programme – pretty quiet
Indeed something is off here.
The proposals seem 'vague', then quietness.
The project to develop UK as a nearly energy independent, driven by renewables, with huge storage and better grid is a really admirable aim.
But I am not clear if that is what GBEnergy is about?
And even if it was, how does it play with all the current private companies, set within a global market?
What to be kicked out of power?
No. Presentation is everything. People are prepared to accept the same policies repackaged by Labour.
There are plenty of examples of that.
But I am not clear if that is what GBEnergy is about?
It is going to be another round of corporate subsidies, the benefits will be for the shareholders of the corporations who get the contracts before the public. It's labours norther powerhouse, a bullshit soundbite policy that is designed to pump government/public money into the hands of the already wealthy.
As you've probably guessed I've never been a fan of the concept of GBenergy - it's a private hash-up for branding purposes with nowhere near enough clout to touch the sides but frankly it's all we've got.
For their own sake they made a big deal about it and it should be pushed to the front of the queue rather than all the nonsense they've been spitting out recently.
My feeling its just another case of boxing themselves in on spending commitments.
Sigh.
Honestly just get some investment done FFS. Most economists are on side with this.
The nature of government investment is it generates growth and thus GDP and tax receipts in old school terms.
Do you know they could make the daft black-hole vanish by issuing 22bn in bonds and the BoE could buy them back. It's all double entry accounting and just sheet numbers. It's not even remotely controversial.
Done, no fuss or bother.
No. Presentation is everything. People are prepared to accept the same policies repackaged by Labour.
There are plenty of examples of that.
Until it really really bites.
But then who else is there to vote for?
Article here by Peter Bloom, a Professor of Management at the University of Essex, saying that the PM is pinning his hopes on blaming the previous government for everything and he'll have to undo their "chaos", which is a gross over-simplification. He isn't taking opportunities to change the status quo
"He and his chancellor, Rachel Reeves, bound themselves to restrictive fiscal rules in order to appear “electable”, even in the face of a public crying out for significant change. Now they have hardly any levers to pull to turn things around."
"Indeed, given his focus on the social unrest and the failures it exposed in the justice system, Starmer’s speech missed an opportunity to offer the kind of truly progressive vision for criminal justice reform that had been implied by his appointment of James Timpson as a prisons minister"
He doesn't recognise the role of the Blair government in what is three decades of poor direction rather than the last fourteen years. GB Energy and piecemeal nationalisation won't overturn those decades. https://theconversation.com/he-never-promised-us-a-rose-garden-but-keir-starmers-doom-and-gloom-speech-was-partisan-finger-pointing-237776
But then who else is there to vote for?
Bingo! You have answered your own question. The centrists know that the only real choice is them or the Tories.
Something which they keep banging on here all the time.
is a gross over-simplification. He isn’t taking opportunities to change the status quo
That is a great little article.
I hate the expression - but that's what a grown up analysis looks like.
GBEnergy lives: https://great-british-energy.org.uk/
And jobs currently out:
Lol same website before election and one job vacancy.
Come on, thoughts on the Thames water situation?
But I am not clear if that is what GBEnergy is about?
You’re not the only one, I’ve listened to the explanations from the government and from those in the industry, I’m none the wiser.
Why can’t the Labour government declare it public/civilian infrastructure and pay for it themselves?
Well, the government are clearly focusing on retaining the badger vote, which will please one of my mates at least.
Labour's problem is that they could see from some way out that they were going to win, and accordingly their strategy was simply to not change the trajectory of the polls by scaring the electorate with too many firm policies; the Labour manifesto was flimsy even by modern day standards. And because the Tories were in such a mess they couldn't get to the point of demanding to see actual policies to challenge them, even when coming up with their own idiotic ideas. So just about anything Labour put forward as policy now they are in power is coming as brand new to us all and inevitably starting to annoy various parts of the electorate who put them in power. Ahead of gaining power good opposition parties have to look like Governments in waiting, and while Labour had to do absolutely nothing to usurp the last lot because it was so easy too watch repeated rounds of shooting in the foot, they actually didn't do enough of comprehensively constructing their case going forward. So we have to get beyond the righteous indignation which is the PM's default setting and then to see some actual beef as some US politician said once.
I do wonder whether some of the policy hesitancies is a result of indecision of the interplay of the fact that the parliamentary majority is huge, which gives great scope to do radical things, but that the average winning majority at constituency level is, I believe, possibly the lowest on record, highlighting the fact that many voters have "lent" their vote to Labour to ensure the Tories lost, and these votes are probably easily lost by doing radical things.
I think people were sick of Tory policies and did vote for radical change, and the LP flagged up (!) vote for change. However, we've had the Tory austerity and now we have Labour austerity, that's the change. People will only get what they fight for, it's naive and ahistorical to expect anything more.
Any comments from the dreamers who thought Starmer was just putting up a front to win and it would all be very different once they won?
Even the way you've phrased the question at 'the dreamers' tells me the answer isn't going to be listened to but here goes anyway.
You might have noticed I haven't been posting on these threads recently, I've been busy and also the same few all self-delightedly posting the same (boring) old criticisms about their MMT hobbyhorse has meant it's another typical STW 'debate' where volume rather than strength of argument wins in the end. I gave up. I almost cancelled my STW membership, but there's still a few things I'm interested in and want to support the team.
But here goes.
So. We are now 56 days (less than 3%) into a potentially 1800 day administration. Halfway to your 100 day 'check the progress' point, and a 56 days of summer recess and dealing with rioting led by 'the defacto opposition' (or whatever it was that Farage styled himself as).
Some things have happened, some haven't yet. Some things are being looked at. From my little corner of government funding land, we see generally good things. You'll forgive (who am I kidding, it doesn't fit your narrative so you'll just criticise) that I can't say exactly what but I see process. I see diligence. I see professionalism. I see ministers and their advisors away from the headlines (headlines driven by who?) out and talking to their partners in PSRE's, Unis and Industry. I also hear noises about funding for key programmes, which are not always what we want to hear but which tell of tough decisions being made against spending / borrowing targets (but you won't like that either because MMT) and I see the approach being taken in asking for the plans, needs, proposals that these decisions will be made on. I see a SR on the Horizon and dare i say it, I haven't in my mind ruled out increased borrowing at that point. Despite what the naysayers report currently.
Everywhere smacks of competence.
But, it doesn't match what half a dozen very vocal STWers want, so you'll reject or ignore it, and for that reason there's no point continuing to debate it, when i can't provide any evidence.
Is this dreamer happy with what I've seen so far? Sure, I would have liked some different decisions but broadly yes, 7 or 8/10. And with that I'll leave you to tell me I'm all wrong.
Meanwhile, Labour pursuing appeal to confirm criminalisation of protest
Why can’t the Labour government declare it public/civilian infrastructure and pay for it themselves?
This.
Labour promised zero-carbon electricity generation by 2030, "Great British Energy (GBE), a new, publicly-owned clean generation company, that will harness the power of Britain’s sun, wind, and waves to cut energy bills and deliver energy security for our country." (
)
There isn't the money in this sort of scheme to interest the private sector, only the public sector would ever invest. Simples
We still use the EU model of pricing and artificially fix prices at the highest levels. That link needs to be broken for consumers to benefit from "cut energy bills"
Everywhere smacks of competence.
Very much the feeling from my corner of public sector land as well. Or at least, a distinct lack of calamity. The atmosphere has changed.
So yes, I'm waiting for more action and disappointed that there hasn't been more concrete detail on things I'd like to see.
But it's obvious that the Starmer haterz were never going to be happy because he hasn't kowtowed to their particular crusade.
An interesting post theotherjonv. It is quite long and the very first thing you do is to attack those who question which direction the government is going.
In fact you expressed so much distain at those who question the current prime minister's vision that you announce you have considered cancelling your stw subscription.
The question itself is of course perfectly valid as the subject matter of this thread is the UK government and it is obviously intended to deal with the subject in a critical manner. It will of course include contributions from individuals who do not support the Labour Party, you do not need to vote Labour to ride a MTB or to register for this forum.
Not only is it a perfectly valid question but it is also a very pertinent question which the wider public beyond STW are asking and/or expressing dissatisfaction over.
Apparently more than twice as many people think that Britian is heading in the wrong direction as think it is heading in the right direction.
Only 22% think it is heading in the right direction which must mean there are a lot of disappointed Labour voters:
Of those polled, 22% said that they think things in Britain are heading in the right direction, 52% in the wrong direction and 19% neither.
Given all this, and as an apparent staunch Starmer supporter, I would have thought that you might welcome the opportunity to confidently provide evidence of how the government is indeed taking us in the right direction.
However what you actually provide is an answer with no substance, you talk about diligence, tough decisions, and that apparently you "hear noises" without explaining what these noises are. And despite your long preamble attacking the question every few sentences you return to attacking the question further.
It all smacks of desperation to me and I actually find it depressing that an ardent supporter of Starmer struggles so hard to offer something positive. Because despite your very false claims I would, and do, very much welcome any announcement from Starmer and his government which I perceive to be positive and in the right direction.
The idea that I would oppose any policy or direction the government is taking purely because Starmer is prime minister is obviously ludicrous.
And if you genuinely believe that I suspect you are simply betraying your own political tribal sentiments.
I’ve been busy and also the same few all self-delightedly posting the same (boring) old criticisms about their MMT hobbyhorse has meant it’s another typical STW ‘debate’ where volume rather than strength of argument wins in the end. I gave up.
I think this is totally unreasonable.
From my point of view I'm interested in better and want to spend time explaining away the bullshit of successive governments and thus the forthcoming austerity drive.
The bit that is actually boring is the pervasive acceptance and unquestioned Neoliberal drive of Centrist politics to deliver substandard outcomes.
I'm disappointed you think talking about government finances is somehow all consuming but you're not likely to get change while you take such a dismissive view.
Christ, we've had umpteen threads about Brexit and Tories - and yet MMT push back is somehow considered an annoyance.
Level the criticism at the Labour party perhaps because when they've given up their illiteracy I will give up my pushback. It's not me or other posters that made a false economic political issue out the 22bn. It's the Labour party that are keeping the boring narrative going.
You’ll forgive (who am I kidding, it doesn’t fit your narrative so you’ll just criticise) that I can’t say exactly what
As predicted.
So with that I think I'm done. I've been here since the start, subscriber since issue 2, had a lot of help and more than a few attacks on other subjects.
But this place is no good for me anymore.
Just ignore this debate then and talk about something else if it bothers you?
Or present an argument.
I really don't get the teddy and pram approach.
You can be totally selective about how you consume your information and join in.
Why are Labour threads considered so sacrosanct?
.
An interesting comment piece here ;
Although they wouldn’t admit it, the model for the PM and his chancellor is less Tony Blair and Gordon Brown – and more David Cameron and George Osborne.
Although I am not convinced by all the claims made in the article I do go along with the suggestion that Starmer is probably instinctively to the left of Reeves but defers economic decisions to her as he accepts what he perceives to be her expertise, think the £28bn green "pledge" and the child benefit cap.
TBH I think Starmer is probably instinctively to the left of those who advise and influence him. Some of his spectacular handbrake turns smack of the invisible hands of his advisors, primarily Morgan McSweeney and David Evans.
Whilst I am prepared to accept that Starmer lacks much in the way of ideological commitment I would be surprised if he suffers from so much self-doubt. I suspect that as a good lawyer he probably puts his personal opinions of what is right and what is wrong to one side and publicly says what he believes he is supposed to say.
debate? there are currently 11 posts from a single contributor on this page alone.
If rone posted less there would not be more of a debate, the thread would be merely less active.
Unlike a face-to-face live debate everyone can express opinions at the same time, the thread won't crash.
It's really not rone's fault if other people have so little to say.
I don't think Starmer is instinctively to the left of many in the labour party. And he's instinctively to the right of most Labour voters which is why he's polling so badly. People didn't want the status quo which is why they voted Labour, they're getting the status quo from a leader seen more on expensive but freebie jollies and in the lap of luxury than alongside anyone likely to have voted for him.
Starmer struggled to answer the question of whether he was a socialist but he was clear about his being a zionist. Reeves describes herself as a social democrat. He seems to have been pretty heavy handed with the treatment of left and right protesters plus the arrest of pro-Palestinian campaigners (Medhurst, Wilkinson) for their online activities does paint a rather reactionary picture. I think he's giving a warning to people not to protest against his policies of austerity and warmongering.
@Ed.....I agree. I was suggesting instinctively to the left of those pulling the strings. The £28bn green pledge is a good example imo. At the same time that Reeves was publicly sowing doubts about Labour's commitment to it Starmer was in contrast publicly trying to dispel any doubts about his personal commitment to it. Until he eventually capitulated.
I almost cancelled my STW membership
But this place is no good for me anymore.
You must be fun at dinner parties. Do you flounce out halfway through the starter when someone says something you disagree with? FFS man get a grip. Someone offering a different opinion on a political thread is no reason to cancel your membership.
And once again I've deleted a post. I get where he's coming from.
You must be fun at dinner parties. Do you flounce out halfway through the starter when someone says something you disagree with? FFS man get a grip. Someone offering a different opinion on a political thread is no reason to cancel your membership.
A different opinion is not what theotherjonv is getting at, it's the lack of tolerance of it, and the kind of personal insult you've just posted that's the problem, Dazh. He has a grip, he's probably really good at dinner parties and cancelling his membership because posts such as yours aren't moderated seems reasonable. Getting insulted for free doesn't bother me but I wouldn't pay for the privilege.