• This topic has 21,868 replies, 382 voices, and was last updated 4 days ago by kimbers.
Viewing 40 posts - 17,521 through 17,560 (of 21,869 total)
  • Sir! Keir! Starmer!
  • ernielynch
    Full Member

    Starmer June 2021:

    “We are committed to updating the GRA to introduce self-declaration for trans people.”

    Starmer today;

    “I think that if we reflect on what’s happened in Scotland, the lesson I take from that is that if you’re going to make reforms, you have to carry the public with you.”

    So from firm commitment to “well I’m not too sure”.

    It really is becoming increasingly difficult to know exactly what Keir Starmer believes about anything.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    One thing we can be sure if its Scottish government policy Starmer is against it.  No matter what it is.  can’t be shown up by a more progressive government north of the border

    kerley
    Free Member

    It really is becoming increasingly difficult to know exactly what Keir Starmer believes about anything.

    Yep, and that is exactly what some of the people interviewed in the red wall seats were saying on a news broadcast I was watching last week. He is walking a thin line.

    spekkie
    Free Member

    That’s exactly what politics is all about though isn’t it? Walking the thin line between “making changes/moving forward” versus “a speed that the voting public will tolerate”?

    Push too hard or too fast at your peril because you need the “man in the street” on your side.

    See threads like “Paris Riots” for more details . . . . .

    In the UK currently the thin line seems to be between “making changes/what we can get away with” versus “a speed that the voting public will tolerate”? – but that’s another story.

    ransos
    Free Member

    It really is becoming increasingly difficult to know exactly what Keir Starmer believes about anything

    He believes that power is obtained by bothering as few people as possible.

    ernielynch
    Full Member

    “If you want to know how your party will treat you in government look at how it treats its members.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/23/labour-tells-19-leicester-councillors-they-cannot-stand-in-may-election

    “The Labour party declined to comment”.

    Assuming that the Labour Party doesn’t avoid commenting to the Guardian because it sees it as a hostile newspaper I think it is probably reasonable to believe that they don’t want to be held accountable for their actions.

    Bearing in mind that Starmer is known to have alienated a lot of Black and Asian members this latest stunt in Leicester is unlikely to help, I would have thought.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-starmer-black-asian-forde-report-b2231609.html

    tjagain
    Full Member

    Aye that just seems wrong.

    I do know “issues” have been raised in the area before but that many de-selected folk without making a public explanation?  Seems off

    kimbers
    Full Member

    There’s a very fine line to be walked on the trans debate

    It’s something that has been very effectively weaponised by the right

    Just ask the SNP

    MSP
    Full Member

    There’s a very fine line to be walked on the trans debate

    There is a fine line to be trod, if you are scared of standing up for what is right and providing leadership on the issue.

    Frankly SKS repeatedly shows himself to be a coward, the labour party line should be that “attacks on trans rights are a culture war issue to distract from the tory mismanagement of the economy which is damaging everyone” it should be repeated every time the tories launch some culture war bullshit ie stop the boats, or criticizing taking the knee. Just accepting the framing and promising to do the same but more effectively isn’t offering anyone an alternative, or even any hope that their lives will improve.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    The thing about the GRA in Scotland is that it took ages to do, involved a lot of compromise all round, ended up with overwhelming cross party support but still not good enough for English parties to accept.

    I do not think it a perfect bill by any means but it did leave all sides of the debate equally satisfied / dissatisfied and thus seems a reasonable compromise

    As in other discussions on the topic I personally had some doubts but the GRA answered my doubts and in the end I accepted it as the best compromise we could get.

    for English parties to just dismiss it out of hand is pretty poor given the effort to make it work for everyone.  I’ve not seen any reasoned critique from either tories or labour.  Just ” its wrong veto it”

    ernielynch
    Full Member

    There’s a very fine line to be walked on the trans debate

    My issue isn’t so much what Starmer’s position is, it is the fact that he repeatedly makes clear and unambiguous pledges before embarking yet again on a U-turn.

    It is not a good look for a leader of a party which consistently attacks the Tories for being dishonest and untrustworthy.

    rone
    Full Member

    This is the best recent distillation of the inflation problem I’ve seen in simple terms.

    It’s US based but can be applied here more or less.

    It’s excellent.

    I know there are economic monsters in this thread who might enjoy this.

    (Watch the Jon Stewart piece too)

    rone
    Full Member

    Bone-headed spineless Tory blooded idiot.

    How’s he going to freeze council tax this year? And so what – it’s hardly proper cash back in your pocket.

    God I hate that man.

    Keeping an eye on the economy currently, I still don’t think that recession has gone away. Drop in house prices substantial.

    Interest income to the top made it read better for a short burst.

    Looking very closely at the BoE/Fed to pivot. They’re intent on breaking something. No sign of that.

    GBP slightly up against the dollar. And yet Andrew Neil in love with recent 2% uptick – yet it’s 45% down over about 15 years (depending on precise time frame)

    Currency markets are simply a farcical way of measuring the real economy.

    kelvin
    Full Member

    God I hate that man.

    We’d never have guessed.

    Labour have no control over when an election is held. If there’s one this year they can introduce policies this year. The normal complaint is “if there is a quick election, we have no idea what Labour would do”, yet if they say what they would do if there is a quick election… the same people moan.

    kelvin
    Full Member

    Starmer almost done with making himself unpopular in the process of getting the public to trust Labour again across all policy areas, rather than just the ones Labour tend to lead on by default. Job nearly done. I just wish Labour had the nouse to swap him out for someone fresh with better campaigning and communicating chops before a General Election. Won’t happen though.

    rone
    Full Member

    We’d never have guessed.

    Well I expect a better Labour leader Kelvin.

    Simple as that.

    Likewise don’t think you’re ever going to acknowledge the right-wing trajectory.

    But then it’s always totally been okay to take the safe position the Tories are shit, and that can be repeated forever on here without comment.

    Labour have no control over when an election is held

    So why make such a lame pointlessly stupid official comment?

    rone
    Full Member

    Starmer almost done with making himself unpopular in the process of getting the public to trust Labour again across all policy areas, rather than just the ones Labour tend to lead on by default

    Done with making himself unpopular to get the public to trust Labour again!

    The logic in that.

    You know what talking to Labour door knockers last week – councillor said people around here (Bassetlaw)still have sympathy with Johnson.

    Either way May will be interesting.

    kelvin
    Full Member

    Likewise don’t think you’re ever going to acknowledge the right-wing trajectory.

    Of course I am. Labour will fight the next election on a platform less left wing than in 2019. Obviously.

    inkster
    Free Member

    Starmer’s ambiguity towards the trans question reflects I think the majority of the populations view in that it’s complicated.

    30p Lee has already made it clear that the government is going to fight the next election on a culture war footing and cited the trans issue as the main target this time round.

    If that’s the ground the Tories want to fight the next election on then Starmer would be daft to respond, so being a bit muddled on that issue might not be a bad strategy.

    The Tories will likely do all they can to pin Labour to a specific trans rights position so they can attack them for it and make the next election all about that. The small boats thing will be yesterdays news in a years time so they’ll need a new target to scapegoat, Labour would do better to deflect the question back to issues like the economy.

    The Tories want to fight the election on the traditional Labour ground of social justice.

    Labour in turn should fight the election on traditional Conservative ground of economic competence.

    ransos
    Free Member

    Of course I am. Labour will fight the next election on a platform less left wing than in 2019. Obviously.

    Obvious now, but only because Starmer has u-turned on the commitments he made when campaigning to leader. There was nothing particularly left wing about the 2019 manifesto.

    kelvin
    Full Member

    Er, obvious to anyone from Friday 15th December 2019… at the latest.

    The 2019 (and 2017) manifestos were right up my street, but I know this country well enough to know they weren’t going to be voted for and implemented. If you’re left wing, you have two choices… keep telling everyone in England that they should be as well, or offer them a compromise they will accept that moves the government of the country to the left. Repeating 2019 was never going to be on the cards for whoever leads the party into the next election, well before the leadership race began, never mind when Starmer took the lead and eventual win.

    ransos
    Free Member

    Er, obvious to anyone from Friday 15th December 2019… at the latest.

    So you believed at the time that Starmer’s leadership manifesto was a lie? I’m sure you must’ve said so on this thread.

    kelvin
    Full Member

    I believed he, or his successor, would go into the next election on a ticket that was less left wing than Corbyn did in 2019. Obviously. Who thought otherwise? Yet another election defeat would have destroyed the party and gifted the Tories another 15 years in power. And will if he fails, which he could still do. He has little campaigning skills, and an inability to connect to voters when he speaks. I still fear that once an election campaign is under way, he’ll come close to throwing away the lead Labour now has, and a loss is still possible. I hope not, of course. Others seem to be wishing for failure…

    ransos
    Free Member

    I believed he, or his successor, would go into the next election on a ticket that was less left wing than Corbyn did in 2019.

    So you believed his leadership manifesto was lie. Could you point to where you said so?

    kelvin
    Full Member

    I took his leadership bid to mean that he would be less left wing than Long Bailey, and Corbyn, which is what the majority of members must have also wanted. They had Long Bailey to vote for (and I think she came across well in her campaign as it happens, but wasn’t offering the change needed). I agree he has moved policy more rightwards than he looked like would when trying to get the votes of members three years ago. Call that a lie if you want.

    ernielynch
    Full Member

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51077811

    However, Sir Keir said he would not “trash” the Labour governments of Tony Blair or Gordon Brown, or the previous leadership of Mr Corbyn. He said there had been “many important moves” made.

    “Jeremy Corbyn was right to make us the party to fight austerity,” Sir Keir said. “We build on that, we don’t trash it going forward.”

    He said Labour should treat the 2017 manifesto as its foundation going forward, saying the next manifesto must “give hope to people that the next 20 years can be better with a Labour government”.

    Starmer was elected leader of the Labour Party on the basis of what he said during the leadership contest.

    Before he was elected Leader he said that he would not not trash the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, in the last three years since being elected he has increasingly trashed the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn.

    He was elected because people believed what he said, including his “My pledges to you”.

    We now know that they were wrong to believe him because he was lying.

    Edit: And here is a reminder of what “My pledges to you” were:

    10 Pledges

    mattyfez
    Full Member

    I’m going to vote for a party who wants better intergration with the EU, and ultimatley, re-join.

    I’m also going to vote for a party who will put PR to a referendum (a fair and legally binding one, this time, not some bullshit halfway house that’s open to interpretation a-la the conservatives brexit travesty).

    So there’s only one party I can vote for, and that’s the liberal Democrats.

    rone
    Full Member

    Of course I am. Labour will fight the next election on a platform less left wing than in 2019. Obviously.

    Less left-wing still doesn’t properly acknowledge what we have going on here.

    MSP
    Full Member

    If that’s the ground the Tories want to fight the next election on then Starmer would be daft to respond, so being a bit muddled on that issue might not be a bad strategy.

    Not fighting back against a false narrative just allows it to become the “established truth” in peoples minds. They have to be careful how they fight it, but it must be challenged.

    ernielynch
    Full Member

    Don’t voters like a bit of “constructive ambiguity”?

    kelvin
    Full Member

    Well, that made me laugh! Point well made Ernie. And so succinctly.

    rone
    Full Member

    So on call Sir Tory Starmer LBC this morning Sir said – no water nationalisation because of Government AFFORDABILITY – (let the public pay for it then hun?).

    He’s pretending yet again money is the issue and it is finite. FFS the governmennt owns the BoE. Does he realise how much damage he is doing to society by pretending we can’t afford things?

    He’s built his whole fake campaign model on attacking the Tories on competence rather than better progressive ideas.

    For those at the back government finances work like this:

    Government has the power of the purse and decides what gets spent.
    The Treasury asks the government departments what they need to spend in the financial year.
    This becomes the Supply Estimates document.
    Submitted to Parliament for approval.
    Not debated.
    This becomes the Appropriations Act.
    Invoices go to Treasury – they’re checked to be valid.
    Treasury instructs the BoE to pay them.
    There is no legal mechanism at this point for the BoE to not pay.
    Accounts are marked up and money is made available/created.

    Taxation is not part of the payment process. It is not collected to be spent. It is deleted frome existence.

    And yeah now I have a formal certificate in MMT / macro – University of Newcastle – Australia (cos there are very few providers currently) – just in case that gets asked again.

    ernielynch
    Full Member

    Have you got a link to what Starmer actually said? I can’t find anything.

    kelvin
    Full Member

    And yeah now I have a formal certificate in MMT / macro – University of Newcastle – Australia (cos there are very few providers currently) – just in case that gets asked again.

    Congratulations. Have you cottoned on to the fact that educating the whole UK population as regards MMT and allaying their concerns about things actually costing something by the time we have a general election (this year or next) is impossible? Your constant and repeated efforts to inform Singletrack forum members are nothing as to the uphill battle with the population as a whole. “Labour will spend us into chaos” is the line that needs countering by front bench politicians if they want a Labour government. And that’s what they’ll stick with for at least the next few years when explaining their policies. They will spend more on the right things, but the “we can spend as much as we want” line leads straight to an election loss.

    kimbers
    Full Member

    I think the way labour need to phrase spending plans is as investment

    Investment in things that will generate returns in the future

    It will still be portrayed as reckless socialism bankrupting the country, but you’d hope after 13 years of austerity the public would see through that

    MSP
    Full Member

    Voters will only see through the austerity myth, if someone makes an alternative argument. Making the same economic arguments as the tories, even when the evidence points at their failures just reinforces their lies about the economy.

    IMO just winning the next election by being less worse than the tories will not last and will not lead to successive victories.

    ernielynch
    Full Member

    Voters will only see through the austerity myth, if someone makes an alternative argument.

    Which presumably why Starmer said:

    “Jeremy Corbyn was right to make us the party to fight austerity”

    ransos
    Free Member

    I took his leadership bid to mean that he would be less left wing than Long Bailey, and Corbyn, which is what the majority of members must have also wanted.

    Only if they (and you) believed that his election manifesto was a lie. Did you?

    rone
    Full Member

    “Labour will spend us into chaos” is the line that needs countering by front bench politicians

    That will be done irrespective. It was done under Corbyn’s costed manifestos.

    The damage is all around from The current economic model and its descriptions. If they are offering the best value of what is achievable then we may as well all pack up and go home.

    I don’t believe for one second there aren’t stronger arguments to be made against right-wing economics. And I don’t believe the public are that stupid too that they are now doing badly because of this.

    All Starmer is doing is reinforcing the narrative of lack of money. I don’t see how that gets us closer to any objective other than Neoliberalism.

    It’s like your defence is built upon the fact he’s going to pull out some amazing ideas once in power.

    I don’t believe it for a second.

    I know there are hurdles. But we will never change anything if you don’t keep pushing back. The government allows the markets to exist and they should serve us not dictate policy to us. The Government has all the control it needs they simply need to exercise it.

    There will be an inflationary argument but look at how out of control that is now – built on years of neglect through not spending the investment on our own energy.

    Look where the bullshit path has led us.

    rone
    Full Member

    @ernielynch it’s on LBC catch up. Ferrari this morning. End of his session.

Viewing 40 posts - 17,521 through 17,560 (of 21,869 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.