It is remarkable that given the unpopularity of the Tories, Starmer is trying so hard to be like them. No ‘moderate’ government has ever been elected and then moved left, it is always the reverse.

Why won’t he play the game the Tories want!? It’s bewildering. Well, it really isn’t… is it.

It’s bewildering. Well, it really isn’t… is it.

Yes actually it is.
This is the sort of craven bending to the hard right press demands that have landed us in such a mess. The utter refusal to stand up to the tory lies and allowing them to portray their distorted image of the UK as what is patriotic.
The tories have put us into a spiral we arent going to get out of it by Starmer bowing to their lies.

By distancing himself from lawyers who are helping those currently being illegally targeted by the government, and forcing a Tory Home Secretary to comply with the law, Starmer is playing right into their hands.

He should be focusing on how unacceptable, and extremely dangerous, it is for a government not to comply with national and international law.

The whole legal profession, across the political spectrum, is rallying behind a lawyer who is being vilified by Tory Central Office for helping those being denied their legal rights, you would expect the Leader of the Opposition, a barrister and former DPP, to have an opinion on the matter.

No?

Yes actually it is.
This is the sort of craven bending to the hard right press demands that have landed us in such a mess. The utter refusal to stand up to the tory lies and allowing them to portray their distorted image of the UK as what is patriotic.
The tories have put us into a spiral we arent going to get out of it by Starmer bowing to their lies.

I’m on repeat but it’s not as if their aren’t a million things to take aim and get the public on side.

(I don’t see this as Starmer’s agenda though – he’s clearly not as passionate as he led us all to believe and is just running with the easy right-wing vote. Though I was never convinced from the start.)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/08/15/keir-starmer-distances-himself-tony-blair-labour-class/

Speaking in Scotland – whose voters tend to be more left-wing than those in England – the Labour leader said that in the “recent past” his party had been “afraid to speak the language of class”.

But he said that would not be the case in “my Labour Party”

Starmer really is shameless and will say whatever he believes his audience wants to hear.

“Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them…well I have others.”

– G. Marx

Another day another Reeves/Starmer regression.

It is staggering that Labour is no longer bothered by inequality. What is it for? https://t.co/gt6Qj3QeGw

— Richard Murphy (@RichardJMurphy) August 27, 2023

Bed wetting times.

Just what exactly are they going to do apart from wait for growth?  UK is mostly a low to no growth country these days.

So good luck with that.

Not even trying for your vote.

Supertanskiii having a meltdown trying to defend Starmer whilst having zero understanding of what a progressive country might look like.

Just not Tory is still right-wing.

From Murphy’s blog:

The economic truths that seem to have passed Labour by
Posted on August 28 2023

I commented yesterday on LBC on Rachel Reeves telling the Sunday Telegraph that she has no plans to increase taxes on the wealthiest people in the UK.

The FT has an article this morning summarising her comments. At the core of their piece, and her comments, is this paragraph:

Speaking to the Sunday Telegraph, Reeves said Labour had no need to levy any form of wealth tax because her party would be rigorous in holding down public spending.
This is a staggering claim because there are so many assumptions implicit in that suggestion, which is a fair synopsis of the Telegraph article, which I have read.

First, there is an implication that taxes fund spending. They do not, of course. The Bank of England funds spending with the monetary equation being balanced by a combination of tax, borrowing and money creation. Reeves must know that but does not acknowledge it. To pretend that tax and spending are directly related, as she implies, is to deny the whole reality of fiscal policy and the economic tools within it.

Second, Reeves ignores the fact that tax is an instrument of social policy. It is the primary tool available for tackling inequality at the top end of the income and wealth spectrums, and what the statement she has made implies is that Labour must be happy with the current levels of inequality that exist in the UK even though they are very clearly destructive for society as a whole. That is a quite staggering position for a party on the supposed left of politics.

Third, this implies that Reeves believes that those with wealth are the generators of value in the economy. Actually, it is the spending power of people and government that, in combination, create value in our economy. But she thinks otherwise. The whole idea that wealth, disconnected as it now is from the making of investment in the economy, has anything to do with value generation is absurd, but this fundamental economic truth has clearly not yet permeated the core of the current Labour Party.

Fourth, the idea that all wealth is equal is implicit in this claim. That is not true. Wealth from, for example, speculation and rent extraction are not value-adding activities for the economy, and to suggest that they should enjoy low taxation (as they do) is an insult to those who work for a living.

Fifth, the idea that the current obvious injustices within the tax system should be retained – which means that those with income from unearned sources will continue to pay much less on their income and gains than do those with income from work – is being supported by Reeves, which is simply contrary to any known form of economic justice.

Sixth, there is the issue of spending. What Reeves is promising is austerity when what we need is spending to tackle the enormous problems that we face that cannot be resolved by private sector spending.

So why do this? Reeves is pandering to the idea put forward by Sangita Myska at the start of my interview with her yesterday that if we tax more, people have less to spend, and so the country is worse off. This is not true, of course. Government spending does not go into a bottomless pit, never to be seen again. It is spent on people and with businesses. In other words, government sending becomes other people’s income. They pay tax on that and then, by and large, spend the rest. As a result, government spending stimulates the economy. What is more, it does so to much greater effect than does leaving income with the wealthy, who simply save what they get – which is precisely why we have such enormous wealth inequality in the UK now. Since, as a result, government spending has a much higher multiplier effect than leaving income with the well-off, the best way to grow the economy is to tax the rich and for the government to spend more – with the added benefit of much improved public services along the way. But again, Labour does not seem to know this.

Instead, Labour wants to maintain the status quo. And as Sangita Myska asked in her programme, what is the point of that when almost nothing seems to work now? I wish I could answer that question, but I cannot.

It is staggering that Labour is no longer bothered by inequality. What is it for?

I think this sums it up well…….

Keir Starmer’s only policy is getting elected

And I reckon this is a line the Tories will be pushing when the general election campaign gets in full swing:

“Why should the public trust Starmer when he breaks his promises to Labour members who elected him?”

If Starmer can’t be trusted not to lie to his own party members why should Tory voters trust him not to lie to them?

I guess it is very possible that he feels more loyalty towards Tory voters than he does towards members of his own party, but are they going to be convinced?

Yeah.

I keep hearing the argument he has to convince Tory voters blah blah with Tory projects.

Can he not convince all prospective voters with solid arguments about how to fix the country? There are loads.

Lame.

To tackle the Tory cost of living crisis, Labour will limit the number of branded items of uniform families must buy, saving them money. pic.twitter.com/RJLmXRUbT7

— The Labour Party (@UKLabour) September 3, 2023

Tackling the cost of living crisis by not tackling the cost of living crisis.

And it is only a Tory cost of living crisis as they are in power. If Labour had been in power it would be a Labour cost of living crisis as they have never proposed anything radical (or even not radical) that would have changed what has happened over the last few years.

I thought the 2017 and 2019 election manifestos were quite radical.

But apparently too radical for the majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

Only appeared radical because we’ve all become to accept neoliberalism as the only way to do things I guess.

So yeah, radical on the one had but essentially just correcting the mess of right-wing destruction.

I was reading some great stuff earlier about how Neoclassical economists dominate every facet of society and universities. So it’s really hard for people to break the mould of what we’ve got; this is despite complex models of the economy totally falling apart when a crisis occurs – they simply don’t work and the state has to fix stuff. Said economists then simply retool their complex models and go again until they break. It’s preposterous.

This is what sets MMT apart – it starts by accurately describing the government’s money operations that underpin current sovereign government finances. It then says here are the facts – you could do this with it.

No other economic theory does this.

Neoclassical models do not take this approach – they say the private sector funds everything – here’s a complex model to make it do something for everyone via trickle-down.

Flops.

The model didn’t work -let’s just retool the same thinking using a better model.

Only appeared radical because we’ve all become to accept neoliberalism as the only way to do things I guess.

So radical then. The person who wrote the 2017 Labour manifesto was also responsible for writing this:

I think it is fair to say that Andrew Fisher sees neoliberalism as a failed experiment.

Andrew Fisher (whilst I will always give time to) is still saddled with the idea that you need to take tax from the rich to pay for things.  Clue HMRC account at the BoE is not connected to the Spending account.  There is an end of sweep the seeks to clear balances. Much of the left are currently stuck with this it appears and doomed to failure because they don’t recognise the structure of government finances.

I’m sorry but it’s still not what I would call radical. That said I agree with probably everything else Fisher might offer up.

The school uniform thing seems to be a strange battle for labour to choose to lose.

I mean, is there really any difference between charcoal grey trousers and white shirts from e.g ASDA or from a ‘special supplier’ that charges a lot more for the same thing?

Has this ever been tested in court?

I can’t see how it’s legal. It stinks of racketeering.

Labour will ‘limit the number of branded items’ oh really.

So a primark skirt is OK, as long as its paired with Loaks or Jimmy Choos?

What a joke.

I’m sorry but it’s still not what I would call radical.

I beg to differ. IMO it provides a radical alternative to the current multiparty neoliberal consensus.

It might not be revolutionary but it does have some redeeming qualities imo. For which for me the most important is that it is both believable and convincing, and makes a compelling argument for a social-democratic alternative.

Politics in our current society is about compromise and pragmatism, although vitally it should not include abandoning your core values.

Labour did far far better than it was expected to do in the 2017 general election. I think it is probably safe to say that this wasn’t down to Jeremy Corbyn’s irresistible charisma, his impeccable politically correct credentials, or his jam making skills.

Labour’s fortunes started to change in 2017 (Theresa May only called an unnecessary GE because the pollsters gave the Tories such a huge lead) when the Labour manifesto was first leaked to the press.

People are prepared to listen to, and even support, a radical alternative to neoliberalism if they believe that it is doable. The manifesto written by Andrew Fisher managed to convince a sufficient number of voters to rob the Tories of their previous very comfortable majority.

Unfortunately two years later as a consequence of massive opposition from a majority of the Parliamentry Labour Party voters were far less convinced that the manifesto commitments were doable.

Although interestingly polls showed that voters still backed many of the policies if they weren’t told that they were Labour policies.

Edit: The point I am trying to make is that the arguments behind MMT are going to be far harder to sell to voters which have been sold the Thatcher lie that “there is no government money, only taxpayer’s money” for the last 45 years.

The school uniform thing seems to be a strange battle for labour to choose to lose

I think it is bang on trend for the current labour party, a veneer of change to mask keeping the same trajectory as now.

Brevity would be welcome.

Labour will ‘limit the number of branded items’ oh really.

In my childs school you have to have:
Polo shirts with the crest
Sweatshirts with the crest
The school coat (no others allowed)
P.E polo with crest
Sports shorts with crest
Rugby shirt with crest.

Not a private school btw! Instead of branded I think it should read ‘crested’

I am not against a strict uniform policy but all the crested items cost me a fortune and it feels a bit pointless.

Well I know what the point is, its to make the school money.

Well I know what the point is, its to make the school uniform supplier money.

FTFY

It’s a **** disgrace. Want to talk about cost of living? Let’s start here.

What’s wrong with a plain white or red or navy polo?

Does it really need to be a branded Fred perry proud boys jobbie?

I thought the 2017 and 2019 election manifestos were quite radical.

Yes, relatively they were. However my comment “over the last few years” doesn’t include back then and I was referring to the Starmer Labour Party and what difference he would have made as it is his party calling it the Tory cost of living crisis.

**** the proud boys. I had that FP Polo and loved it, and then they decided it was their uniform. Now I can’t wear it without looking like a white supremacist and in the end had to put it in for recycling.

In my childs school you have to have:

Polo shirts with the crest

Sweatshirts with the crest

The school coat (no others allowed)

P.E polo with crest

Sports shorts with crest

Rugby shirt with crest.

Not a private school btw! Instead of branded I think it should read crested

I assume these dubious and frankly ridiculous rules extend to the school dinner policy and only branded produce is provided. Birds eye fish fingers, Heinz baked beans, etc etc. Yeah right of course it does

Surely it is not enforceable?

One of the best swizes is updating the logo* or rules to kill off the second hand market and stop hand-me-downs from older family members.

[ the term “branding” is being used rather than “crest” for good reason ]

Remember having badges you could iron or sew onto a jumper or blazer of the right colour from any source…? I can’t remember any branded school clothes at my secondary school beyond the school tie**. Was very different at the private school down the road… where the clothes were specialised and only available from one/two old fashioned shops. I guess that’s where the trend spread from into state schools? Well, family budgets aren’t the same in many state schools, and this is a real issue that needs addressing. Yes, it’s thousands of places down the list of things to address ASAP, but it’s easily understood by those with kids in school right now and there’s no reason to ignore it because of other bigger priorities.

[ ** EDIT: there was a jersey for sports as well ]

Remember having badges you could iron or sew onto a jumper or blazer of the right colour from any source…? I can’t remember any branded school clothes at my secondary school beyond the school tie

Yup. At my school had a tie and then just the badge to get sewn on.
Anyone know how it works in terms of cash for all the new branded stuff? Does the supplier pay x percent back to the school?

But don’t worry about jumpers and schools falling to bits – there will be money for this.

Exclusive: British steel will be used to make warships if I get into power, promises Keir Starmer https://t.co/5SLaIGKsCz

— John Stevens (@johnestevens) September 3, 2023

He told the Mirror: “We’ve got new frigates being built ready for 2027. The percentage of British Steel in that is 4%. We would change that. I went to Scunthorpe to the steelworks up there a couple of months ago. The workforce up there are determined to go to green steel because they know that’s where the orders.

“They just need a government that actually backs them in achieving that. They know that their own jobs and those of the next generation are bound up in having a government that actually has the foresight or strategic thinking and is gonna put its shoulder to the wheel of making sure that we have a steel industry of the future.”

Good. Government backing the shift to green steel, including using its purchasing power to push that. Should already be happening.

British Steel = a Chinese company making warships for Starmer.

You’re simply endorsing the exact opposite.

There’s **** all green about it.

In other news Liz Kendall. FFS.

Sorry, what are you proposing? Cancel the current builds, or not use the purchasing of materials for them to encourage green steel production in the UK as the builds progress?

I’m with rone on this.
Nice soundbite from Starmer but…it’s bollocks on at least two fronts:
– British Steel is chinese owned
– green steel doesn’t really exist in a meaningful way for volume production and that won’t change for decades; hydrogen powered furnaces are mainly theoretical at present and electric arc furnaces are fossil fuel dependant to generate the electricity.

Then consider all of the iron ore is imported – probably from Australia or Brazil – in diesel powered bulk tankers.

If Starmer’s going to say something it should be meaningful, relevant and honest.

Yes, Scunthorpe is foreign owned. All our steel industry is. And the company that is planning to provide the Hydrogen for green steel at Scunthorpe is owned by Norway. Green electricity will come from off-shore generators owned by Norway, France, China, Japan. Embracing the shift to green production in the UK will involve foreign owned companies if it is to happen fast and soon. Is falling further behind and just importing everything your answer? More UK owned involvement is also needed (whether that is private or state owned) but realistically that’s going to take longer to ramp up… any kind of sizeable impact by 2027 needs the existing foreign owned players onboard. The alternative is no UK steel production and too slow a switch to low and lower carbon industry in the UK. We still want industry in the UK, yes? And we want it to with a reduced carbon impact, yes?

The notion that hydrogen from Norway will have a meaningful impact on reducing fossil fuel generated energy used in making steel in Scunthorpe is nonsense – and that won’t change for a long time.
The current volume producer in Norway has a theoretical capacity of 270MW/40,000 tonnes.
In it’s first year under Jingye’s ownership the Scunthorpe plant produced 2.6 million tonnes of steel.
The most optimistic assumption is that 4MW of hydrogen power will be required to produce 1 tonne of steel so…crunch the numbers.
Equinor and RWE have signed heads of terms for a hydrogen JV – but that’s all.
As for projected costs of developing and building large scale hydrogen plants they are absolutely colossal.
Will post some numbers when I have time – and will address your comments about wind power.
Let me be clear – the UK desparately needs an industrial strategy but doesn’t have one; a meaningful industrial strategy requires strong and clear direction with very heavy investment.
The tories don’t know where to start and Starmer has said nothing to persuade me he would do much better.

The hydrogen wouldn’t be from Norway. It would be domestically produced by a company with majority Norway ownership. For steel production to continue (and increase) in the UK, and make use of that planned hydrogen supply, and the planned increase in off-shore wind, needs a government to make sure buyers that are down chain of public spending use it over imports. Especially if those imports are still using traditional high carbon emission energy production. No point exporting our carbon emissions and killing of our remaining industry. Yes, everything to do with greener UK steel is all “planned” and not yet available… but a possible future government signally they will be part of it all is essential to developing it.

kelvin – it’s all pie in the sky.
No UK government has shown much, if any, ability to plan.
Failing to plan = planning to fail.
Why is there a need for a possible future hydrogen generator in the UK to be majority Norwegian owned?
Could it be the absence of a UK industrial strategy and a government which won’t invest meaningfully in developing future technologies?
So, back to the numbers – Jingye Steel in Scunthorpe would use 10.4 million tonnes of a hydrogen a year to maintain it’s current production.
The biggest hydrogen plant in Norway has a theoretical maximum output of 40,000 tpa so the UK is looking at something with 265 times more capacity.
Yeah, right.

In other news Liz Kendall. FFS.

Yep, if it wasn’t over already it definitely is now. Glad I no longer support the Labour Party as they really are a **** disgrace now.
The voters really will be voting between two tory parties but listening to Wes Streeting last night on C4 news that is what they have heard people want and they don’t want the traditional Labour stuff.

In the latest ipsos poll Labour’s lead over the Tories has increased to 20% :

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/almost-9-10-say-britain-needs-fresh-team-leaders

However Starmer’s lead over Sunak, with respect to who would make the most capable Prime Minister, remains at 4%. Considering how unpopular the Tories are currently it is surprising that Starmer doesn’t have a significant lead over Sunak in terms of prime ministerial material.

Even I who hasn’t much confidence in his prime ministerial qualities believe that Starmer will make a more capable PM than Sunak.

What makes it especially surprising is that the the Parliamentary Labour Party is so solidly behind Starmer, and barely a murmur of criticism is ever heard.

Also worrying for Labour is that almost half (47%) believe that they are out of touch with ordinary people – up 14%

Edit: The ipsos link doesn’t seem to be working correctly for some reason. Here is a link to the Evening Standard’s report of the ipsos poll:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-lead-rises-ipsos-poll-general-election-keir-starmer-rishi-sunak-b1107950.html