Won’t they…?

Nope because the current Labour party doesn’t really have one. They are terrified to be seen dolling money out to the underserving.

Scared of their own shadow.

Yet Truss is happy with looking after their lot.

Why is that? Why are Labour so obsessed with helping the *working* family as opposed to simply the left-behinds?

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

Really that’s staggeringly bad.

Some of us really did get shot down for pointing out Truss was not useless in the context of support.

Although even I can’t see the mini-budget surviving.

but it’s hardly the first time that Starmer has come up with excellent proposals

True, but we cynics have been begging for policies and this is quite a policy. It also defines a clear objective and mission which is light years away from the tories backwards looking surrender to the fossil fuel corporations and billionaire elite. This really gives people something to vote for.

Why is that? Why are Labour so obsessed with helping the *working* family as opposed to simply the left-behinds?

Realistically, I’d guess thats the target deomgraphic for getting their vote so they can actually get into power and do something. Like the Tories appealing to pensioners.

Realistically, I’d guess thats the target deomgraphic for getting their vote so they can actually get into power and do something. Like the Tories appealing to pensioners.

So change your politics to suit Tory voters rather than substantiate your own much better ideas?

I mean – Tory policies have delivered the outcomes we have today so yeah why not run with them.

It’s the most terrible idea in politics. Because once you’re in power you will be impotent to do anything because you’re too scared to implement your own ideology/pragmatism – for being thrown out at the next election.

Tory forever then?

People in work with families to support shouldn’t be dismissed as natural Tory voters, they absolutely should be seen as open to persuading to vote otherwise at the next election.

but it’s hardly the first time that Starmer has come up with excellent proposals

Well how much of an excellent idea it is depends on the detail. The environmental improvement is the only realistically benefit, which of course is very important and gets my support.

But the promise of cheaper bills and well paid jobs are just pipedreams if the current trend of public financing of projects for corporate ownership continues. Such large scale transformative projects need to be kept in public ownership if the benefits are to be realised for the whole country, and not just the shareholders.

Labour would keep 19% basic rate but reinstate 45% top rate of income tax, says Keir Starmer – UK politics live

So Starmer wants to follow two historical Tory tax decisions?

(There was a 50% tax rate in 2010 before the Tories lowered it to 45%.)

Does he have any better ideas of his own? Why can’t it be a higher tax rate than 45% I mean it’s not as if we couldn’t do with it.

Or a lower than 19% tax rate for standard rate. Why numbers the Tories have chosen?

Both numbers created by the Tories.

Pre bankers budget but the truss bounce appears to have been rather flat

Big MRP poll by @SavantaComRes and @ElectCalculus 15-16 Sep (during mourning period) puts Labour 12 points ahead
Lab 45%
Con 33%
Lib Dem 10%
Green 4%
Reform 3%
Lab majority c50 on new boundaries

— John Rentoul (@JohnRentoul) September 25, 2022

So Starmer wants to follow two historical Tory tax decisions?

Anything Labour say you will paint as “Tory”. Even when they are going against the Tory government’s give away to the rich. Give it up. How bloody convoluted is this attempt?!? It isn’t funny. It’s sinister. Promising to reverse the removal of the 45% tax band will mean more progressive taxation under Labour than under this Tory government. And that won’t be the end of Labour’s tax changes if they form the next government, it is just a straight answer to the question “will you reverse the tax changes announced in the mini-budget” in a clear way that every voter can understand.

Edit. I see its been mentioned but ignored as it doesn’t suit the narratuve

Labour on course for majority of 56, MRP poll suggests
Labour is currently on course to win a majority of 56 in the next election, new polling suggests.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/sep/25/keir-starmer-labour-party-conference-uk-politics-live-news?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with:block-633056f38f0891514fe7bf06#block-633056f38f0891514fe7bf06

Still tighter than that suggests. Geographic spread of votes and all that. Lots of work for Labour to do! It’s looking more promising at this point than any of us would have predicted if asked in 2019 though, isn’t it?

Read the article. Thats taking into accout the geographical spread and boundary changes.

Read it earlier. Lots of seats mentioned could slip back to being predicted Tory wins with very little vote swing back to them. Labour need to be more than 10 points up come the election. Our voting system and current age, social and geographic distribution is now heavily helpful for the Tories. Obviously, I want the next PM (well next one to win a general election) to be Labour. Lots still to do. Truss helps though (yes I do still think that).

Pre bankers budget but the truss bounce appears to have been rather flat

theres a snap post budget Savamta poll in (and for) the Daily Fail predicting a 56 seat labour majority from a 12 point lead. :/

I’d take that but a big win for labour would mean no PR which is no good.

Labour will build British industry and invest in homegrown projects from green steel to renewable ready ports.

Funded through our new National Wealth Fund, this will give British people a stake in those investments, putting money back into their pockets. pic.twitter.com/edQvCv9bv2

— The Labour Party (@UKLabour) September 26, 2022

Yes, you idiots it’s called state ownership backed by an already sovereign currency issuing government.

These people are off their heads.

“But I don’t want to admit we already spend and issue out own currency – we must need a ‘fund’.”

FFs

I like anything that spends on the diminished parts of society but please stop pretending that we need some made up economic lies to make it work

‘Grow the economy’ means no redistribution but if you work harder to enrich your bosses you might get a few extra crumbs. It’s Labour’s re-wording of trickle down.

A wealth fund actually sounds like a pretty good idea on the face of it, providing the investment for the infrastructure projects by keeping shares in the companies to funnel back profits for future investments.

However I think it creates two big problems.

1, while governments create the investment and infrastructure, down the line other governments can sell off the investments to create short term gains.

2. Governments injecting investment of public money inflates an already inflated asset market, meaning future generations pay more for a smaller percentage of the pie (see also the impact of government support for first time buyers and the impact on house prices).

They are saddled with the same thinking but communicate it differently than the Tories and perhaps aren’t as reckless but it’s still the same framework they are operating to.

Labour can do very little different to the Tories in this sort of economic situation – I mean the BoE would still raise rates wouldn’t they!

All sounds good to me (the Labour headline that is, not your moaning).

Another policy. Labour seem to mean business in this conference. It’s long overdue. How long before they announce free broadband?

NEW: Labour commits to renationalisation of the railways. Shadow Teansport Sec @LouHaigh: “Labour in power will bring our railways back into public ownership as contracts expire.”

— Lewis Goodall (@lewis_goodall) September 26, 2022

Well now Brexit has ‘been done’ they at least don’t have that massive obstacle to fall over so have achance with some well thought out polcies.

Yup… all the performance patrotism (sadly needed, you only have to read any polling done on why Labour lost so badly in 2019) isn’t the only story that’ll come out of this conference, thank goodness… it’ll all still be too cautious for many… and it won’t be the full story of how the next election will be fought… but it will be the start of the drawing of an obvious and understandable dividing line in the minds of the voters.

Next up… a Real Living Wage.

Yes, none of this is new. Yes, we need it. The big challenge for Labour is to take enough voters along with them up to election day.

I’d take that but a big win for labour would mean no PR which is no good.

It wouldn’t be anything like that by the time the media has got to work. And a system which ‘may’ only deliver a narrow majority after 12 years of some of the poorest administrations in living memory needs to go.

Labour needs to make sure, by pacting with the LibDems, and pledge to introduce full PR in the first term.

Labour needs to make sure, by pacting with the LibDems, and pledge to introduce full PR in the first term.

I don’t see this happening. Even though I’d like it to. Not on the run up to the next election anyway. What happens once/if the Conservatives are out of office, and need to be kept out of office… that’s a whole other future battle. Conservative majority government based on minority public support is dragging the UK down, and splitting it apart.

NHS staffing, the nettle that needs grasping…

Labour would train 5,000 new health visitors, create an extra 10,000 nursing and midwifery placements each year, and double the number of medical school places.

We'd pay for it by reversing the cut of the 45% additional rate of income tax. pic.twitter.com/elJCJ4tWXR

— The Labour Party (@UKLabour) September 26, 2022

Creating jobs that are needed, rather than giving money to the rich and pretending that creates jobs, who’d have thunked it. They really need to push the message that this is how the economy expends, and not by allowing the already wealthy to horde even more money.

Sounding good so far.

Yeah, I can’t say I’m finding it inspirational but it feels pretty solid, well thought out and probably a good mix of public-pleasing and actually useful.

But, at the same time finding it hard to square with the party’s messaging of, oh, a couple of days ago, or the month or the year before. That might sound like a lefty blaming starmer for everything, I guess, but I’d have been pretty happy if this had been his launch, rather than 2 and a half years in.

I mean, for instance, “we’ll nationalise the railways”. Excellent! Of course we ****ing should, even most tory voters want that and the tories have literally already done a bunch of it. Except that was a 2020 promise that he already backtracked on once and it was just as open a goal last time. Reannouncing the same abandoned policies, even when they’re good one, makes you less trustworthy- I love the policy but do I have faith in it still being policy next year? No.

But, it does feel generally better

I like all these ideas but Labour are claiming funding them with taxes reset.

I means seriously shut up about that.

Rachel Reeves says Labour would use revenue from reinstating 45% tax rate to hire more NHS staff – UK politics live https://t.co/D8j7b5cIGD So depressing that Labour still thinks there are little pots of money to spend as if the gov't is a household when it is nothing like that

— Richard Murphy (@RichardJMurphy) September 26, 2022

Yep. I mean, we have Kwarteng literally giving money to rich people and openly paying for it with borrowing, and it going down like a lead balloon. Even against that backdrop, Labour are still on the balancing the books myth. At this point I think there could be no opposition at all and they’d still be too traumatised to move from that position. It is not good. And it’s persistent- if anyone ever does find the nerve to actually tell the truth on this, every time a previous leader’s not done it will count against them, so they’re not just sustaining the myth even though it suits the tories way more than it suits them, they’re making it stronger.

People think that Labour promise things that we can’t afford as a country. They are wrong, but you can’t just tell them that, you have to reassure them to win them over. Every single policy Labour announce will be paired with a preemptive answer to the question “how will you pay for it”. Get used to it. It will be the pattern right up to the next election. “Uncosted plans” will not be part of the Labour manifesto. Full stop. The same rules do not apply to the Tories, but it’s always been that way.

Corbyn’s manifesto was fully costed with the backing of dozens of international economists and he still got destroyed with the support, sadly, of some on here. He’s no longer relevant but there are lessons to be learnt whilst people stew in their newly acquired poverty.

Some of us voted for Labour at both his general elections, because we could see where Tory MPs would take us. I did anyway. Not sure who “here” helped defeat/destroy him though… it’s just some mountain bikers throwing thoughts and observations between each other. I’m hoping most of those moaning about Starmer on here will still vote Labour, if they are in a Tory/Labour marginal seat. Grumping on the internet that he isn’t good enough is fine, and perfectly understandable. Not voting against these Tories at the next general election is a whole other matter.

Who said ‘helped defeat/destroy’? It reads ‘support’, do you not remember ‘who could vote for Corbyn?’, ‘magic grandad, couldn’t find his arse, anti-semite’ etc. Blimey, it wasn’t that long ago.

Truss has gifted Starmer a 17pt lead , extra remarkable as there is no ukip to slice up the Tory vote & 20% gone to lib Dems/ GRN/SNP !

💥LABOUR LEAD BIGGEST EVER RECORDED BY YOUGOV. EVER.

17 points, highest since 2001.https://t.co/aml5oX8dch pic.twitter.com/VFrK2XafQt

— Matt Chorley (@MattChorley) September 26, 2022

Blimey, it wasn’t that long ago.

Sorry Bill, yeah, many of us pointed out Corbyn’s weaknesses, but still voted for Labour parliamentary candidates with him as leader. I’m hoping those pointing out Starmer’s weaknesses (and he has plenty) will still vote for Labour candidates with him as leader. If that’s what works in their seat. We’ll see.

Truss has gifted Starmer a 17pt lead , extra remarkable as there is no ukip to slice up the Tory vote & 20% gone to lib Dems/ GRN/SNP !

And we haven’t had this winter yet. The worst is yet to come.

Also, there is much more that LibDems can take from the Tories in some areas of the country. The cancelling of their conference was a stroke of luck for Truss… it’s a rare period of air time for them normally. I think they’ll be double figures if they can remind voters they exist. Tories at 25% seems possible.

I mean, for instance, “we’ll nationalise the railways”. Excellent! Of course we ****ing should, even most tory voters want that and the tories have literally already done a bunch of it. Except that was a 2020 promise that he already backtracked on once and it was just as open a goal last time. Reannouncing the same abandoned policies, even when they’re good one, makes you less trustworthy- I love the policy but do I have faith in it still being policy next year? No.

Nearly 30 years ago in 1995 Tony Blair was talking about renationalisation of the railways, when it suited his agenda to do so:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/labour-draws-up-plan-to-renationalise-railways-1568038.html

He soon dropped the idea when it no longer suited his agenda.

But why is Starmer only considering renationalising something which is consistently losing money and will always do so?

Last year when the government pumped £16.9 billion into the railways might have been exceptional but pre-pandemic the railways were receiving £5 billion a year in government subsidies.

Of course it is right to nationalise an industry in which the profits go to private companies and the losses to the government, but why not also talk about renationalising vital industries which usually are expected to make vast profits?

To only have under common ownership industries which provide a vital service but have to rely on government subsidies perpetuates this false narrative that nationalisation equates with failed business models that only survive due to handouts from tax payers.

And why can’t the profits from the utilities, for example, be used to help pay for health care, or education, or indeed subsidise the railways?

Public support for the renationalisation of the utilities is there, even among Tory voters, Starmer needs to be less timid and less worried about what the Daily Mail might say.

Edit: It’s worth pointing out that a quarter of the railway journeys are currently provided by the public sector, and nearly half by foreign government owned companies.

https://www.independent.co.uk/business/quarter-of-train-journeys-on-services-run-by-public-sector-b2047763.html

kelvin
Full Member

People think that Labour promise things that we can’t afford as a country. They are wrong, but you can’t just tell them that, you have to reassure them to win them over. Every single policy Labour announce will be paired with a preemptive answer to the question “how will you pay for it”.

Of course. It’s just, it doesn’t have to be bullshit. It doesn’t have to play pretty much entirely by the tory party’s rules. Least of all when the tory party isn’t.

I was disappointed by the apparent lack of audience participation.

Probably lots of quiet republicans. We have to do that quite often. Been doing it since school.

Also… microphones are a thing.