Forum menu
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.
Always amazes me how the names Starmer and Reeves seem to be used instead of terms such as 'UK Government', or 'The Police', or 'Crown Prosecution Service' and so on, you'd think we were living in Russia, North Korea or Belarus with the amount of credence you give Starmer in terms of his power and reach.
If you consider how Starmer has led expulsions and parachuted in candidates into safe seats his aim clearly was to centralise power and control with the LP and the PLP with him at the centre of it. This is borne out by his talking of 'my Labour Party'. I doubt if Reeves consults much within the party but rather with bankers and financiers. So quite reasonable to refer to them by name, I'm sure they'd be flattered.
A different opinion is not what theotherjonv is getting at, it’s the lack of tolerance of it
And yet another political thread gets derailed by focusing on individuals rather than the subject.
A couple of days ago Mark made this comment on the Gaza thread:
Ad Hominem is where someone starts to attack the individual rather than put forward their argument.
And explained that is what gets threads shut down.
Personally I can't see any evidence that theotherjonv's opinions are not being "tolerated". If you want to see a lack of tolerance on political threads just try posting something vaguely critical of the EU. Your past vitriolic personal attacks on me for daring express anything other than full support for the EU are truly something Ed.
So quite reasonable to refer to them by name
Plus it is a completely normal and accepted practice as this headline shows:
Will things get worse like Keir Starmer says?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8rx1jjg35ko
There is nothing strange nor unacceptable about that headline rather than an alternative "Will things get worse as the government claims?"
I am not sure of the point of playing down the role of the Prime Minister of the UK.
It's not even about opinions being tolerated. It's kind of the opposite of ad hominem attacks; it's the lack of credit being given to the opinions.
I've never made a secret who I work for. I've provided as much insight as I can from 'inside' before and I made the same comment again today
From my little corner of government funding land, we see generally good things.
If you google you'll see who visited this week; now of course I can't say what was discussed, or give any details of any of the other discussions ongoing with Gov, etc.
You’ll forgive that I can’t say exactly what
But they are diligent, professional and give me great encouragement that decisions are being made by Government broadly that are in the interest of the country. I don't hugely care what another survey says, I know what I'm seeing first hand and I trust that.
What was your opinion?
an answer with no substance, you talk about diligence, tough decisions, and that apparently you “hear noises” without explaining what these noises are.
So while opinion might be 'tolerated' when that's how it's valued what's the point of trying to engage any longer.
There - reason given why I don't feel I want to be here any longer.
But this place is no good for me anymore.
So what you are upset about is folk writing stuff online that you don’t like/disagree with?, and you are going to flounce over that?
Really?, who gives a flying **** over what gets posted,
Really?, who gives a flying **** over what gets posted,
I do.
I take time to put decent thoughts down. To those that say 'just ignore' - is there any point then posting if you just ignore what comes back, that's not how debate works.
Contrary to other people's experiences I (used to) enjoy the politics threads but all we seem to have now is death by volume of posts by the same few people, saying the same thing over and over.
So while opinion might be ‘tolerated’ when that’s how it’s valued what’s the point of trying to engage any longer.
With the greatest respect theotherjonv you are just some random geezer on a MTB forum who I don't know personally. I am not sure why you expect everyone just to accept everything that you say unquestioningly and without providing any evidence.
Especially when you add stuff like this:
"now of course I can’t say what was discussed, or give any details of any of the other discussions ongoing with Gov, etc."
So what, everyone has to accept that the government is doing a great job because you have secret information which you cannot devulge? You are expecting an awful lot of trust from a bunch of individuals who know nothing about you beyond on what they know from a MTB forum. And in my case we don't even share a similar political vision.
However expecting that level of trust isn't even the strangest angle of all of this. It is the announcement that because some people aren't accepting your take on the political situation you are considering/have decided to cancel your subscription to stw. Again with the greatest respect that's just weird. If it was an issue of bullying and relentless insults then I could understand but that is clearly not the case here.
Personally despite our obvious political differences I would be sorry if you were to indeed stop posting. A diversity of opinions is what creates a healthy political debate, echo chambers in contrast are unhealthy and of little constructive use imo
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.
To be fair, those of us prepared to give the government more time are unable to do what you want.
We don't have the confidence/arrogance in our position to declare it sacrosanct as some seem to want us to. We might end up disappointed along with the rest of you. But we are at least prepared to wait and see rather than kick off the minute we don't see what we wanted.
Do you flounce out halfway through the starter when someone says something you disagree with? FFS man get a grip.
Given jonv's time and contribution to the forum, and how he's been incredibly open and honest about things he has gone through, that was a cheap shot.
A diversity of opinions is what creates a healthy political debate, echo chambers in contrast are unhealthy and of little constructive use imo
Maybe you and others need to consider how you respond to people then, rather than take a tone that discourages participation and drives the echo chamber
I don't know if this is a good idea or not but
But maybe that's just a random account I found on the internet, and I really am some sort of Mitty. Do you need a photo of me holding a random item you specify before you'll trust that I have some relevant insight?
What pisses me off about that BBC headline is the underlying statement whether from Starmer or the government "get worse before they get better". FFS don't do stuff you know will make it worse. Is there absolutely nothing they can think of that will make things better for the people who voted for them as of now? Austerity hasn't worked so ditch it. Leaving the EU hasn't worked so go with the majority of those who voted for you and paint out those red lines which will allow a Norway or Swiss deal. Fill in all those legal loop holes that mean the richest pay next to no tax. Put an end to all the fiscal niches and financial arragements that amount to legalised tax evasion. Give up on "net zero" lies and invest in an energy transition that will cut CO2, reduce reliance on imported energy and create future jobs/businesses. How about some nationalisation, protectionism... selling off public assets hasn't worked, it's led to shitty services at inflated prices; reverse the trend. And some education, its all very well having universities handing out degrees to those (foreigners) who can pay but making it worthwhile for young people to learn skills that are actually needed in the modern world should be the priority.
More of the same won't work, dare to do something different. Disease, want, squalor, ignorance and idleness - do something.
To be fair, those of us prepared to give the government more time are unable to do what you want.
Despite your best efforts to suggest that it is this isn't simply about "me" being uncomfortable with the direction that the government is going. It is the majority of the UK voters:
Maybe you and others need to consider how you respond to people then, rather than take a tone that discourages participation and drives the echo chamber
Again despite your best efforts to suggest otherwise nothing I have posted can be interpreted as aiming to discourage theotherjonv from posting. I just don't agree with his political assessment.
And it is obvious that big hitters like yourself have no issues personally attacking me at every given opportunity, ironically.
Do you need a photo of me holding a random item you specify before you’ll trust that I have some relevant insight?
You on a mountain bike, at least 50cm off the ground, with no wires. 😉 And fusion power stations won't happen. 🙂
And it is obvious that big hitters like yourself have no issues personally attacking me at every given opportunity, ironically.
Says one of the rare big hitters to have survived the culls, Brexit, metoo, Friday Kylie and religion threads. You are the biggest hitter by a country mile on politics threads Ché Ernie. Indeed the only member I'm aware of with a poster revolutionary as his STW pseudo. (this is meant as friendly teasing not getting personal - the Brexit stuff was as you note personal and something I still can't get my head around because your personal situation makes your views unfathomable)