few back bench MPs

The ban on fracking was clear Conservative Party policy. And a Tory manifesto commitment at the last general election.

The fact that the new prime minister has decided renegade on that Tory party policy is a reflection of internal events within the party.

The idea fracking represents a clear and insurmountable idealogical gulf between the Labour and the Tories is nonsense. As is the claim that fracking cannot be banned under a Tory government but only under a Labour government. Labour did not ban fracking when in government.

FFS please come up with something more substantial than fracking to prove a clear idealogical gulf between Labour and the Tories. Provide an example of something that could only be achieved under a Labour government and not a Tory government.

Something which goes to the very core of the aims and beliefs of the two parties. Such as the common ownership of vital industries, provisions of affordable social housing, or industrial democracy.

But of course you can’t, because there isn’t any. The best you come up is to suggest that Labour would make better Tories than the Tories, same policies just better implemented. And presumably a greater commitment to election promises, whatever they might be. Not a particularly convincing argument after the Labour leader has broken all ten of the “pledges” he made when he stood for election.

It doesn’t have to be like this. There is no reason why the UK cannot have a party which offers a clear alternative to the Tories. A party which isn’t led by self-serving careerists but instead by people who are committed to right what is wrong and take the country down a different road to the Tories.

If people don’t want that then so be it, let them vote Tory or LibDem. But give them a choice, rather than ape the Tories.

FFS please come up with something more substantial than fracking to prove a clear idealogical gulf between Labour and the Tories

My actual words were…

The Labour Party aren’t the problem, a Tory party wedded to fossil fuels are.

…that does not just mean fracking, I never said it did. Fracking is a tiny part of our future energy mix, whether it happens or not. But every effort to increase our reliance on climate wrecking energy needs to be resisted.

My actual words were…

The Labour Party aren’t the problem, a Tory party wedded to fossil fuels are.

Yeah it’s such an important issue for you that you celebrated when the Tories forced the resignation of their leader who was determined that the Tory Party shouldn’t be “wedded to fossil fuels”.

https://www.politico.eu/article/boris-johnson-uk-climate-push-loses-its-champion-as-tories-eye-new-leader/

The fact that the Tories were able to have a party leader not commited to fossil fuels proves that the issue is not a defining idealogical difference. The majority of UK energy now comes from renewables – a development that has occurred under a Tory government.

Now find me a potential Tory leader who would support the common ownership of energy, rail, mail, and water. I’ll save the bother – there isn’t one. That is a clear defining idealogical difference.

And which the present Labour leader pledged to support. This is what Starmer had to say:

Public services should be in public hands, not making profits for shareholders. Support common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water; end outsourcing in our NHS, local government and justice system.

Why aren’t you offering that as a clear idealogical difference between the Tories and Labour Kelvin?

their leader who was determined that the Tory Party shouldn’t be “wedded to fossil fuels”.

You made this person up. If you mean Johnson, he stood in the way of on-shore renewables the whole time he was in office. And Sunak gave huge new tax breaks for investment in increasing North Sea oil and gas extraction.

Well if you insist on ignoring inconvenient stuff like this then I guess there is little point in further discussion

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/28/uk-electricity-from-renewables-outpaces-gas-and-coal-power

The only way to guarantee that the needs of the environment and consumers come before profits for shareholders is through common ownership, something which Starmer himself claimed to recognise.

That would be an idealogical gulf between Labour and the Tories. Not fracking.

I’m not ignoring the success of off-shore wind (which is the success story shown in those guardian graphs, despite not being publicly owned, paired with a fair chunk of reduced demand due to the pandemic). It’s the move away from onshore in England that has left us caught short. Trying to fill that gap in future with fossil fuels is the wrong direction to take, a direction taken by this government under both PMs. I’d rather those extra renewables were state owned, but honestly… just get on and build them whoever owns them.

‘People’ don’t want on-shore windfarms.

They lose their shit at even the slightest mention of it. ‘People’ don’t even want on-shore solar farms. One proposed a mile away from my house is getting loads of objections and the usual NIMBY protest group has sprung up.

I’m not one of those people I should add. The turbines near me look stunning on the hill sides. Impressive in the sun and an eerie presence in the dark winter nights.

Some ‘people’, for sure. And there’s votes in pandering to them. But if 2022 isn’t the year you can persuade people that maximising our renewable energy production, and weening us off gas, is the way forward… it’ll never happen.

Now would be a great time for a left-wing party – I mean if we get more RW tax junk then surely we need to push in the opposite direction?

Replacing Starmer won’t change the Labour Party. He isn’t the problem.

No, the problem is the factions within it all determined to undermine each other at any cost. Up here they directed their energy towards the SNP by teaming up with the Tories FFS.

It’s shameful TBH, the best thing to happen to Labour would be a shock win, implement PR and let the party explode into its natural factions. That would be the greatest gift they could give us and probably the easiest way to keep the country together. Lets face it, Labour haven’t been a party for the workers since forever and are falling apart at the seams. The system, however, is pulling this zombie party along whilst pretending it’s an opposition and they can’t join forces with another party because, well, THEY JUST CAN’T!

Now would be a great time for a left-wing party

We have more than a few but without that brand awareness (yes, I did that deliberately even though it made my skin crawl typing it) they’re just also-rans. The system doesn’t allow small parties to become bigger, look at the Greens FFS.

the best thing to happen to Labour would be a shock win, implement PR and let the party explode into its natural factions.

I think the only reason labour aren’t fully behind PR, is that a fair percentage of the parties leadership realise that is what will happen, and their fiefdoms will shrink.

We have to deal with the voting system in front of us, if we want any change in the next decade. I’m fully behind PR, as are “some” Labour politicians, but not enough. Members are behind it… Unions not… for the reasons you suggest I suspect.

As for other parties… in a parliamentary seat where the choice is between Labour and, say, one of the Green parties… I’d choose Green. That’s a rare choice in the UK though. There are many seats where, to keep the Conservatives out, you need to vote Labour or LibDem, even if neither are close enough to your own politics for the vote to be the one you’d cast if we had PR. The voting system and regional demographics and voting patterns can’t simply be ignored or wished away if we want an end to this string of Tory PMs taking us where they are.

One proposed a mile away from my house is getting loads of objections and the usual NIMBY protest group has sprung up.

To be fair though it’s only the NIMBYs that make the noise. There could be a huge majority in favour and they’d probably not be protesting.

But if 2022 isn’t the year you can persuade people that maximising our renewable energy production, and weening us off gas, is the way forward… it’ll never happen.

Seems Kwasi is onto it already!… 🙂

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/23/kwasi-kwarteng-poised-to-ease-planning-rules-for-onshore-windfarms

I don’t understand this, how is down to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to “ease rules” for onshore wind farms?

Surely it is a matter for the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, or maybe the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy?

All-powerful cabinets ministers encroaching on issues which are the responsibility of others and duplicate ministries/briefs reminds me of the chaos caused by the Nazis administration of the Third Reich!

Perhaps that’s Liz Truss’s plan – to have all potential adversaries and threat to her authority too busy fighting each other and trying to curry favour with her to mount a coup?

All-powerful cabinets ministers encroaching on issues which are the responsibility of others and duplicate ministries/briefs reminds me of the chaos caused by the Nazis administration of the Third Reich!

A possibly deliberate Godwin and signal it’s time to end the thread.

Seems Kwasi is onto it already!…

Let’s hope it happens! 🤞🏼

Anything being leaked about solar?

And for what ‘People’ say – ready the Daily Mail comments!… 🤦‍♂️

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11242993/Kwasi-Kwarteng-quietly-lifts-ban-new-onshore-wind-farms-Chancellor-sets-clash-Tory-MPs.html

We should be using our own natural resources to supply our energy and fuel this green agenda is costing people far too much

🤣

I’m a bit surprised that the Al Jazz Era’s three part on the Labour Files hasn’t had a mention. A bit slow moving, no car chase, restaurant or imtimate scenes but chilling stuff nevertheless.

It has been mentioned. Political parties have a lot of horrid manipulations and lies going on in them, don’t they.

Oh right, that’s ok then.

No, the machinations talked about in that are not okay. But the documentary series has been mentioned. Can’t blame you for not reading the thread though.

Can’t blame you for not reading the thread though.

Especially as it hasn’t been discussed, just mentioned. And not by you.

It’s one of those things that some people would rather sweep under the carpet. And dismiss it as typical of any political party.

Although you don’t give any example of other parties where the party establishment has worked so extensively to covertly attack and undermine their own leader.

Whatever.

Anyway, glad to see that Labour is spreading their “response” to the “mini-budget” across the front bench, rather than making it all about Starmer. It’s the best approach IMHO, as Starmer still can’t connect with voters, and something other than a presidential style approach is going to be essential building towards the next election.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-leader-keir-starmer-promises-28074627

At last! Something to actually get behind. More of this and I’ll have to eat my words.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/24/keir-starmer-unveils-green-growth-plan-to-counter-liz-trusss-tax-cuts?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Good morning. You beat me to it…

Solar and wind are nine times cheaper than gas AND will:

Create jobs✅
Lower bills ✅
Cut emissions✅
Break our dependence on gas markets and fossil fuel autocrats✅✅

— Greenpeace UK (@GreenpeaceUK) September 25, 2022

Nothing new, but hopefully the timing of renouncing the longer term energy plan (going into this tough winter paired with the reshuffled government’s empty short termism) will mean people will be listening. People can see that energy is not a fringe issue, and accelerating the addressing of climate change is good economic policy for all of us. Patching over the problems this winter is essential, but the big picture is what we do in the medium and long term, and that is also government led.

Yeah I’m into that but it’s so 2008.

Home

Yes, nothing new, but time to take the country of pause, and get a government that will take us forward.

My dreadful terrible opportunistic local MP really annoyed me yesterday. Having a go at A.R over a tax cut that they *plan* to make by 2024 that Labour is *definitely* going to reverse.

WTF.

Hang on – you aren't expected to have actually made the tax cut until 2024!

— Tyrone Braithwaite (@MTBrone) September 24, 2022

Yes, nothing new, but time to take the country of pause, and get a government that will take us forward

I need to be not convinced that every time we get close to actual change the establishment of both parties pushes back from it.

I’ve got less than zero faith in the Labour party to do anything remotely impressive.

Basically the strategy as always is wait for the Tories to implode. Sigh.

Basically the strategy as always is wait for the Tories to implode.

The strategy has been two fold… lead by announcing short term policies required, for the government to then follow and use (but twist to divert money to the rich and companies they are connected with)… and prepare and refine longer term policies ready for the next manifesto. The time to move the Tories aside is at an election. The timing of policy announcements is being very carefully planned. Those that want everything announced last year are understandably frustrated, but need to be more realistic. They would already have had to adjust any fully fleshed out policies many times to respond to world events and government changes. Being trapped with 2019/2020/2021 rigid policy commitments being repeated by Tories and their press come an election would be a mistake. The publishing of the general election manifestos will show stark differences between what the Conservatives and Labour are proposing at election time.

Just to be clear… this…

renouncing the longer term energy plan

Should have said “re-announcing”… auto correct completely changed the meaning for me. Dammit.

Your information is based on speculation and opinion yet you talk as if it’s fact.

There’s no way you can be sure of what you are talking up.

There is no way with ‘costed’ budgets they can deliver meaningful change.

You know it simply doesn’t work like that.

You can either be the party of big change or you can have a balanced spending plan. If they can reconcile that I would be all ears.

Your information is based on speculation and opinion yet you talk as if it’s fact.

I’m just repeating what front bench politicians (and back bench MPs and others outside parliament involved in policy review) keep telling us. If you don’t trust any of them, then fair enough.

There is no way with ‘costed’ budgets they can deliver meaningful change.

There absolutely will be detailed “costings” for the next Labour Manifesto (just like the last two). If you think Labour will fight the election with a “don’t worry your little heads about costs, it doesn’t matter” approach, you’re mistaken.

As for the comment about “balancing”, I agree with that, but that doesn’t preclude explaining to voters what things are expected to cost, and the likely way they will be paid for.

There absolutely will be detailed “costings” for the next Labour Manifesto (just like the last two). If you think Labour will fight the election with a “don’t worry your little heads about costs, it doesn’t matter” approach, you’re mistaken

All your words not mine.

There is no such thing as ‘costed’ when it comes to deficit spending. You can only enact change or growth by putting more in to the public purse than you take out.

It is the reason why Labour were unable to offer as big a plan for energy as then the Tories.

That approach is economically doomed from the start.

I don’t mean this absolutely personally but why are Labour supporters always willing to accept such low level goals?

The Labour plan was for a shorter period, which is why it wasn’t as “big”. You’re just parroting the attack lines used against Labour by the Tories. “Pick a different time period and compare” is the oldest trick in the book. And that’s what happens when the opposition announce their polices first, they are quickly reframed by the government, which is one of the reasons you don’t firm up all policy years before an election.

At last! Something to actually get behind.

Yup, but it’s hardly the first time that Starmer has come up with excellent proposals, he is perfectly capable of doing so. That’s how he became party leader.

At the end of that article which you link it mentions that a new Opinium poll in today’s Observer gives Labour a 5% lead which considering the circumstances isn’t huge (although it was mostly taken before the mini budget) so Labour really need policies to inspire voters.

What is more worrying is another article in the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/24/keir-starmer-defies-call-for-changes-to-first-past-the-post-voting-system

However, the Labour leader said in an interview with the Observer there would be no deal – before or after the election – that would see him back a change. Asked if Labour’s manifesto would include pledges on electoral reform, he said: “No, it’s not a priority for me.”

Which begs the question – what is the actual point of the Labour Party annual Conference?

It would appear that the Labour Party is run as a one-man personal fiefdom and the opinions of nearly half a million members are of no importance. The annual conference seems to be no more than an exercise in which the party leader tells hundreds of thousands of members what they need to support and fight for.

In a democratic organisation you would expect the membership to have a significant influence in what went into the party manifesto.

And it’s not Starmer who is to blame for this, he inherited this situation. There was a time when the Labour Conference could insist on policies becoming manifesto commitments. Indeed Conservative Party Conferences were much ridiculed for being pointless show managed events without any democratic debate. The person who changed it all was that champion of control- freakery Tony Blair.

Although others since him, including Jeremy Corbyn, did nothing to change this quite frankly deplorable situation.

What else grates me is the Tories wear tax cuts to the rich on their chest!

But Labour won’t do the same for spending into the economy to support the poor. The Tories will absolutely stand behind their failed ideology of serving their archetypes.

Labour won’t go anywhere near theirs!

Won’t they…?

The Labour plan was for a shorter period, which is why it wasn’t as “big”. You’re just parroting the attack lines used against Labour by the Tories. “Pick a different time period and compare” is the oldest trick in the book

Why didn’t Labour aim bigger? What is there to lose?

Time and time again excuses for Labour inadequacy.

I’m not parotting anything. I never thought Labour’s plan was extensive enough. Even for a short term solution.

Labour put too much emphasis on fully costed rather than helping the poor.

You see the bullshit here yet?