• This topic has 9,431 replies, 38 voices, and was last updated 1 day ago by nickc.
Viewing 32 posts - 9,401 through 9,432 (of 9,432 total)
  • Sir! Keir! Starmer!
  • Premier Icon rone
    Free Member

    Starmer pledge 10: An effective opposition to the Tories.

    LMFAO.

    Honestly a child could do this

    Manifesto:

    Starmer 2.1% wage rise Nurses. Labour manifesto 5%.

    Premier Icon rone
    Free Member

    So which policy commitments has he abandoned then?

    Lmfao. Off the top of my head.

    2019 Manifesto NHS+public sector 5%. Starmer 2.1% Nurses.

    Also of his 10 pledges my favourite:

    10) An effective opposition to the Tories. Forensic.

    (Double caffeine fuelled post)

    Premier Icon grum
    Full Member

    Hey don’t go quoting facts, that’s tinfoil-hat wearing old trot/sixth former stuff. Ideological purity, don’t want power, grandad, something something…

    *Insert Monty Python picture.

    Premier Icon kelvin
    Full Member

    Starmer 2.1% wage rise Nurses. Labour manifesto 5%.

    Starmer and the rest of the front bench pointed out the Government’s own plans were for a 2.1% rise, and that the Government should AT LEAST give them that, rather than reduce it. Nothing has been said that prevents a 5% rise being in the next Labour manifesto as well. They did however refuse to back the 12%+ rise that some unions were calling for.

    Premier Icon rone
    Free Member

    Starmer and the rest of the front bench pointed out the Government’s own plans were for a 2.1% rise, and that the Government should AT LEAST give them that, rather than reduce it.

    Why didn’t they say we back 5% then? Why be ambiguous?

    It’s in the manifesto.

    You’re making excuses for them.

    Premier Icon grum
    Full Member

    ‘we didn’t row back on the manifesto we just will no longer say whether or not we support what we said in the manifesto’ – some spectacularly weasely words there.

    Premier Icon rone
    Free Member

    There was a clear option for Starmer to say it is our policy that the public sector should get 5%. It’s our policy.

    ‘At least 2.1%’ is unequivocally an avoidance of that commitment.

    Premier Icon kelvin
    Full Member

    I wasn’t making excuses for them. You were interested in facts.

    If I were to defend then, I’d say that their approach is to place the emphasis on the Tories not delivering on their own commitments first, and leave the voters with a “you can’t trust this government” feeling rather than banging home a “look what you could have won if you’d voted for us” message. I don’t think it’s the right approach myself, it’s too apologetic and doesn’t help build enthusiasm for a Labour government. Opposition needs to be about offering a strong alternative, not just exposing the government as liars who only look after their own, and I don’t think Starmer and his shadow team have been doing the former nearly enough.

    Premier Icon rone
    Free Member

    Then it’s a fact they didn’t cite their manifesto commitment of 5%?

    If I were to defend then, I’d say that their approach is to place the emphasis on the Tories not delivering on their own commitments first, and leave the voters with a “you can’t trust this government” feeling rather than banging home a “look what you could have won if you’d voted for us” message. I don’t think it’s the right approach myself, it’s too apologetic and doesn’t help build enthusiasm for a Labour government. Opposition needs to be about offering a strong alternative

    Agreed.

    ,

    Premier Icon rone
    Free Member

    Manifesto 2019 – to raise corporation tax to 26% eventually.

    Remember Starmer’s messy entry on that one?

    Premier Icon kelvin
    Full Member

    “We”… as in people who supported them at the last election, need to stop expecting them to keep fighting the 2019 election though. They need to set out what they’d do in if they ever get into power in the future, and we have’t heard enough about that yet. But measuring every policy message against the 2019 manifesto is the wrong approach. That manifesto is now closed. Lots* to salvage from it, but it can’t be a straight jacket to wrap the party in. The voters need a new offering to get behind…. we haven’t seen enough of one yet… but it won’t be, and can’t be, 2019 all over again.

    [ EDIT: personally, I don’t think there’s much to keep that wasn’t also in the 2017 manifesto, but that’s still a very large proportion of it… but importantly, far from all of it ]

    Premier Icon rone
    Free Member

    Of course things change, now more than ever but the deal here is the likes of Binners asking what has Starmer rowed back on.

    That’s all.

    For sure it won’t be 2019 or 2017. It will be far far less progressive.

    Premier Icon grum
    Full Member

    “We”… as in people who supported them at the last election, need to stop expecting them to keep fighting the 2019 election though

    Funny cos most of his supporters want Labour to fight the 1997 election.

    Premier Icon kelvin
    Full Member

    What has he rowed back on? The next manifesto is still likely to include a pay rise for nurses. It could still be 5%, or more. The next manifesto could be more progressive… I’m hoping that on climate change, jobs and income for the lower paid it will be. But it won’t we written in TV interviews this year. We need to hear more. Much more. But don’t expect X% on CGT, or X% for nurses, or X% new higher rate inheritance tax, or X% for training care staff or whatever. The exact numbers will not be committed to in the media at this point of the election cycle.

    Funny cos most of his supporters want Labour to fight the 1997 election.

    I don’t know any one who does. Mind you, I don’t know anyone who would call themselves a “supporter” of Starmer, even those who think he’s the best option. I do want him to be PM, absolutely, but I don’t think he will be. I definitely don’t think that polices that ape the 1997 manifesto would get him into no10, and see no signs that anyone on the front bench is proposing that at all.

    Premier Icon rone
    Free Member

    What has he rowed back on? The next manifesto is still likely to include a pay rise for nurses. It could still be 5%, or more.

    He cited 2.1%. we’ve just discussed this.

    He could’ve have cited 5%.

    You can’t have it both ways.

    Premier Icon ransos
    Free Member

    What has he rowed back on?

    He made it pretty clear that he didn’t feel the need to stick to his ten pledges made for his leadership campaign. You may well argue that he is right to do so, but that wasn’t the question.

    The other way of looking at it is that he decided to say whatever he thought necessary to buy votes from the left.

    Premier Icon kerley
    Free Member

    Funny cos most of his supporters want Labour to fight the 1997 election.

    If only it were that simple.
    – Long reign of Tory rule that was about as low as it could get
    – Still had the Scottish Labour MPs
    – Still had the traditionally Labour voters who voted Labour because that was what was expected

    It is much harder to win now than in 1997 even if a Blair type character was the leader who managed to get Labour to almost be seen as fashionable and progressive. Starmer is doing the opposite of that as that is all he knows.

    Premier Icon kelvin
    Full Member

    He cited 2.1%.

    He said the government should at least stick to their own 2.1%, rather than dump it.

    Premier Icon nickc
    Full Member

    He could’ve have cited 5%.

    He could have, but it’s easy to guess why he didn’t. The laziest attack line for any Tory MP is “Labour’s profligate and unrealistic spending pledges” they say it each and every time. Given that we’ve just spent huge amounts of money propping up the economy, and people (however wrongly) understand the message of “we’ve got to tighten our belts a bit” I can understand a political decision being made that Labour cannot make those sorts of promises and not have it used against them. The story has to be “Tory’s can’t be trusted to be fair to critical workers”, not “more Labour debt”

    Lots of folk still believe the Cameron/Osbourne claim that it was Labour spending pre 2008 that “They had to sort out with Austerity”  I don’t think Labour are on firm ground when it comes to public spending promises.

    Premier Icon ransos
    Free Member

    The laziest attack line for any Tory MP is “Labour’s profligate and unrealistic spending pledges” they say it each and every time

    But what’s the alternative? Saying nothing just creates a vacuum and makes it look like Labour has no alternative to offer.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/15/keir-starmer-labour-party-conference-tory-social-care

    Premier Icon nickc
    Full Member

    But what’s the alternative?

    We’re years away from an election, I don’t think there’s no point in setting out an alternative, it’s not like people have a choice…There’s just a message that this govt are corrupt, incompetent, and can’t be trusted.

    Premier Icon rone
    Free Member

    He could have, but it’s easy to guess why he didn’t. The laziest attack line for any Tory MP is “Labour’s profligate and unrealistic spending pledges” they say it each and every time. Given that we’ve just spent huge amounts of money propping up the economy, and people (however wrongly) understand the message of “we’ve got to tighten our belts a bit” I can understand a political decision being made that Labour cannot make those sorts of promises and not have it used against them. The story has to be “Tory’s can’t be trusted to be fair to critical workers”, not “more Labour debt”

    Ah, this is exactly why they need to get away from their Fiscal Credibility rule rubbish.

    The limit to spending is not the amount of spending.

    It’s real resources, employment and inflation. (And not just the minor uptick we have currently.)

    The point being just because we spent a few quid in the pandemic is an example of how you can put government spending to work. The limit on that isn’t “we’ve spent a lot – therefore we can’t spend more.”

    Tightening our belts is not the solution. Examples of Goverments both stateside and here shows time and time again austerity and trying to balance the books makes no sense for a currency issuer.

    Labour never come out on top when they try and become the party of fiscal prudence. The Tories will always win the war on that despite clearly being inefficient spenders.

    The argument on here of play it safe against the Tories hasn’t been cutting through. So I’m not convinced Starmer’s wishy washy neolibral approach to dealing with the finances is actually doing them any good.

    Premier Icon rone
    Free Member

    We’re years away from an election, I don’t think there’s no point in setting out an alternative, it’s not like people have a choice…There’s just a message that this govt are corrupt, incompetent, and can’t be trusted.

    But we’re not are we?

    I could think of no better time than the last few months to start building a case against the government. The opposition have wasted this.

    Premier Icon nickc
    Full Member

    Ah, this is exactly why they need to get away from their Fiscal Credibility rule rubbish.

    [“Devils’ advocate”]

    Ah, Labour are scared by the truth, so they want you to trust in their financial jiggery-pokery to bend the rules and blind you with smoke and mirrors, just like they did in 2008 and it all came crashing down around them, and everyone in Britain paid the price. The good and sensible folk of Britain know that you can’t spend beyond your means, any prudent housewife can tell you that.

    [/”Devils’ advocate”]

    Say it in a Boris Johnson voice for maximum effect….

    Premier Icon rone
    Free Member

    He said the government should at least stick to their own 2.1%, rather than dump it.

    So he still cited 2.1%.

    Nothing to see here.

    Premier Icon nickc
    Full Member

    The opposition have wasted this.

    I don’t disagree, they’ve been all over the place.

    Premier Icon kelvin
    Full Member

    The opposition have wasted this.

    I agree with that. We need to be realistic and not expect a detailed manifesto and alternative first budget at this point though. That needs to come in an election year. I also happen to think a new leader is needed in that election year. Starmer could change my mind on that point, but he hasn’t yet, and he’s had plenty of time and opportunity to do so.

    Premier Icon rone
    Free Member

    Ah, Labour are scared by the truth, so they want you to trust in their financial jiggery-pokery to bend the rules and blind you with smoke and mirrors, just like they did in 2008 and it all came crashing down around them, and everyone in Britain paid the price. The good and sensible folk of Britain know that you can’t spend beyond your means, any prudent housewife can tell you that.

    They didn’t defend themselves enough in that era. Certainly against a Global recession – they just rolled over. What with Liam Byrne in the room as his stupid joke note.

    I agree Labour are having a hard time moving away from tax and spend. But tax and spend has not done them any favours has it?

    I regularly chat with James Meadway one of Labours previous senior economic advisors – and he is all about balancing the books. He’s completely at odds with the way the economy actually works. My take is Labour don’t employ the right economic advisors. And to win they need to.

    Premier Icon rone
    Free Member

    I’m going to stick this here again. Sorry.

    It’s the way forward.

    Premier Icon nickc
    Full Member

     And to win they need to.

    Again, don’t disagree, I think it will take longer still than the coming election for Labour to overcome this. In the meantime, attacking this govt on it’s obvious failings seems to me at least to be 1. Honest, and 2. becoming the view of many many voters (including left wing Tories )

    Premier Icon ransos
    Free Member

    There’s just a message that this govt are corrupt, incompetent, and can’t be trusted.

    Which is what Labour has been saying, and we all know how well that’s working for them. it just smacks of an opposition who can’t come up with any ideas of their own.

    Premier Icon nickc
    Full Member

    it just smacks of an opposition who can’t come up with any ideas of their own.

    That’s one way of looking at it, it’s also a pretty effective way of getting people to think about a government in a particular way. Keep on banging the drum…

    That’s the thing about ideological voting vs. voting a different way because you don’t much like the present lot. They count just the same.

Viewing 32 posts - 9,401 through 9,432 (of 9,432 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.