Yeah but that could be simply a reflection of your own personal political point of view – obviously not everyone has the same political views.

What is it about voting Green that would make me have such a reactionary viewpoint?

So it’s the Mandela Effect then?

I have no idea what your personal political views are but as far as I am concerned the 1980s were far worse than the 1970s, although obviously that is coloured by my political views – you might think the 80s were a great decade.

The reason it is the 70s and not the 80s which is given as an example is because the victors write history. And Thatcher was definitely the winner. She claimed that her greatest achievement of all was New Labour, that’s how comprehensive her political victory was.

Although we are obviously still currently paying the price of that victory.

So yeah, no one uses the 80s as an example because it simply doesn’t suit the Tories to do so.

FWIW I wasn’t even born in the 70s but your claim that people enjoyed more equality is completely untrue. Maybe better if you were a white heterosexual male but otherwise, nah.

Let’s not forget we were also the “sick man of Europe”. Or was that, the IMF bailout and the winter of discontent just more examples of Tory misinformation?

Yeah.. My prediction is labour will win a reasonably comfortable majority in the next election.

But it won’t be because Labour are good, it will be because they are not quite as evil/stupid as the conservatives.

So it won’t really be a win, as such as it will be avoiding a larger disaster.

your claim that people enjoyed more equality is completely untrue.

I don’t ‘own’ that claim.

“Britain in the 1970s was one of the most equal of rich countries. Today, it is the second most unequal, after the US.”

https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2023/nov/27/uk-spends-more-financing-inequality-in-favour-of-rich-than-rest-of-europe-report-finds

I am frankly staggered that on supposedly “lefty” STW anyone should argue that the UK has not become less equal in the last 45 years.

Let’s not forget we were also the “sick man of Europe”. Or was that, the IMF bailout and the winter of discontent just more examples of Tory misinformation?

Yup. The “sick man of Europe” line is very similar to the “Broken Britian” line which was peddled by the Tories between 2007 and 2010 when they formed a government with the LibDems.

But perhaps you believe that it really was a case of “Broken Britian” until we had a Tory prime minister?

Remembering that there were economic difficulties in the UK in the 1970s, and there very obviously were, does not mean that there were no economic difficulties in the 1980s, or the 1990s, or the 2000s.

And yes the classic “but Labour went cap in hand to the IMF” which is regularly trotted out is an excellent example of Tory misinformation.

Firstly the reason it happened was not because social-democracy had failed in the 1970s and needed to be replaced with neoliberalism, as the Thatcherite Tories would have you believe, but because, among other things, oil prices quadrupled overnight.

And secondly the reason that a Labour government went to the IMF is quite simply because Labour won the general election – documents released in 2010 show that had the Tories won the general election they had planned to do exactly the same thing.

But you won’t hear a Tory politician admit that so perhaps it isn’t true?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/edward-heath-planned-to-go-to-imf-in-1974-economic-crisis-jh7j3rz6slq

Let’s not forget we were also the “sick man of Europe”. Or was that, the IMF bailout and the winter of discontent just more examples of Tory misinformation?

Yes but it’s only half the story. The UK were already racked up in foreign debt at that point. (Due to a complex swap arrangement.)

Spill over from Bretton Woods (reliance on the dollar) and the UK only used half of the loan.  Technically impossible to happen now and massively weaponsied for Tory value.

It’s so fascinating progressives keep using simple Tory attack lines to make their points.

History is normally more complex than just taking a Tory trope and using it in support of Reeves/Starmer becoming more wedded to monetarism.

Have I got this the correct way around – we desperately want to get rid of the Tories because they are oh so painful and ruinous but we’re now in a new paradigm where because Labour are doing demonstrably failing Conservative policy then it’s a good thing?

WTF – only on STW forums.

Just keep voting for the Tories then! We have the natural cycle of where their policy gets you currently playing out now!

Why even bother going back to the 1980s? There’s nothing to sell off to make the Thatcher thing work because the state doesn’t have the assets that it had.

Crack on – the Centrist super cycle again doing God’s work for the Tories.

Scotland Yard investigating Croydon East Labour vote rigging?

The Met’s Cyber Crime team is investigating alleged irregularities in the selection for Labour's candidate for Croydon East.

Can you IMAGINE how much coverage this story would have got in the Corbyn years? https://t.co/xYS6ssuxm0

— Aaron Bastani (@AaronBastani) March 18, 2024

… Goes without any fuss these days.

“Have I got this the correct way around – we desperately want to get rid of the Tories because they are oh so painful and ruinous but we’re now in a new paradigm where because Labour are doing demonstrably failing Conservative policy then it’s a good thing?

WTF – only on STW forums.”

I think that’s how your views are distorting it in your head.

I agree with mattyfez, we’re headed for a smaller disaster, because the electorate are too ill-informed to be trusted to vote for what the country really needs at this point. Something Labour seem to understand and accept, even if some of you on here don’t like it.

I agree with mattyfez, we’re headed for a smaller disaster, because the electorate are too ill-informed to be trusted to vote for what the country really needs at this point. Something Labour seem to understand and accept, even if some of you on here don’t like it.

I don’t like out because it is pointless.  Being in power but doing pretty much the same things with no attempt to make it better and if Reeves is to be believed that will never change.  Those ill informed voters need to see some positive change as they will always be ill informed so will just vote tory again as they saw no difference under Labour so what was the point.

Has Starmer or Labour’s popularity increased each time he has dropped one of his pledges – If the answer is no, which it is, then why did he drop them as they were the type of thinking that is needed.

Scotland Yard investigating Croydon East Labour vote rigging?

The Labour Party culture in Croydon is deeply corrupt. From the dodgy business deals which helped to achieve bankruptcy and spiralling council tax increases, to the scandal covered by ITN of properties unfit for human habitation, to the hacking of journalists emails to use illegally obtained information to expel party members.

What makes all this particularly worrying is that the two people most responsible for this Labour Croydon culture are extremely close to Keir Starmer, and have huge influence over him.

Firstly David Evans the person chosen by Starmer to be Labour Party General Secretary was the man who masterminded the successful campaign to defeat the Tories in Croydon, a borough which they had always controlled, and replace them with Labour. Evans is undoubtedly a brilliant tactician who has Starmer’s ear.

And secondly Steve Reed the Labour MP for Croydon North has an extremely close association with Morgan McSweeney, the man who pulls Starmer’s strings, going back to the days when Reed was leader of Lambeth council – long before Starmer was even an MP. It is reasonable to assume that McSweeney had discussions with Reed before approaching Starmer to ask him if he would stand as leader. Reed’s influence over both the Croydon Labour Party and Keir Starmer is indisputable.

I consider Labour rule in Croydon to be a microcosm of Labour rule in Westminster, and a window to provide an insight into how Labour will govern the UK.

You are right about the lack of interest in the failings of Labour under Starmer compared to failings that might have occurred under Corbyn.

The centrists position is quite clear, as seen on this thread – Labour, and more importantly its leader, must not be critised. If you do you are basically saying that Labour are worse than the Tories.

But on the other hand if the Labour leader provides a vision which is significantly different to that of the Tories then he must be relentlessly critised, ridiculed, and condemned. See the Corbyn thread for proof.

Thanks for the backstory on that. Not something I’m familiar with.

I was reading all the guff from Reeves about supply-side reform – that’s the same old Thatcherite guff which includes cutting taxes etc.

the solution lies in wide-ranging supply-side reform to drive investment, remove the blockages constraining our productive capacity, and fashion a new economic settlement, drawing on evolutions in economic thought.”

Wtf?

Does anyone buy any of this?  It’s total junk words.

‘Fashion a new economic settlement…’

???

If you are interested rone and you can spare 20 minutes this gives a far more in-depth background to the latest developments, and it is highly relevant to UK national politics.

Okay Ernie – on my evening tube list!

@ernielynch and @rone It would appear that it’s a choice between blue or red authoritarians/populists/fasicts* at the next election. I’m not enthused and I can hear my staunch Socialist Londoner grandparents spinning rather quickly in their graves.

*Delete as your political view dictates.

Yes Sandwich I’m totally confused why it is going in the opposite direction of what is needed.

It’s the exact opposite of pragmatic and will solve very little.

We’ve been truly stitched up. (Although I’ve never been keen on Starmer – total lack of political conviction but somehow gets James O’Brien and Ian Dunt very excited, and half of STW.)

He’s going to be the working example of why people say politicians are all the same in terms of solutions. (Without the hysteria of the Tories granted.)

But I can feel the excuses piling on early – ‘the Tories had 14 years to do this… Starmer can’t do owt in 5 years!’

I give in. Quotes are buggered.

if you’ve five minutes you could look at what Reeves actually said in yesterday’s speech about a decade of national renewal

https://labourlist.org/2024/03/rachel-reeves-mais-lecture-2024-decade-national-renewal-economic-growth/

“it is evident that Lawson was wrong not only in application but in theory. First, because his microeconomic reforms were hitched to an inadequate view of the appropriate policy levers, assuming that the state had little role in shaping a market economy and that the people and places that matter to a country’s success are few in number.

The outcome was an unprecedented surge in inequality between places and people which endures today. The decline or disappearance of whole industries, leaving enduring social and economic costs ”
…
Since 2010, economic policymaking has been characterised by two major failings. First, austerity, then instability.”

…or you could just listen to what people you tend to agree with say about it I guess.

“The centrists position is quite clear, as seen on this thread – Labour, and more importantly its leader, must not be critised”

As a centrist, I am bitterly disappointed with Starmer and the direction the party has taken, and have said so on here a few times.

But I’d sooner have a Labour/Starmer government than a Tory government, which is tbe bottom line for me.

The vehemently anti-Starmer KernowDamo covers it in his video today:

The £ that the UK Government spends are created by the Bank of England, they don't come from "cuts" or "taxes". All government spending is "funded" by money creation. There is no taxpayer's money. There is only public money. https://t.co/0gzxFmejy0

— Dirk Ehnts (@DEhnts) March 20, 2024

This unfunded things has gotten out of hand to the detriment of all of us now.

Instead of debating what we could spend money on – what is urgent. Silly politicians have laid the groundwork for the unfunded/funded nonsense that will hold us back.

God, this is all so bloody ridiculous.

if you’ve five minutes you could look at what Reeves actually said in yesterday’s speech about a decade of national renewal

I’ve read it – it’s just meandering capitalism lip-service but I acknowledge your point.

Since 2010, economic policymaking has been characterised by two major failings. First, austerity, then instability.”

Can’t you see they’re just saying we’re not doing austerity but actually we’re still doing austerity using the same macro economic levers the Tories enjoy?

It’s a object lesson in how to pretend ‘we’re’ doing things a bit differently.

Reeves can’t even string a logically clear progressive plan together.

Can you tell me where the growth will come from if it’s clear then? I can’t see it.

Reeves’ speech hit list

BoE independence tick

OBR tick

Unfunded Tax cuts/spending tick

Debt sustainability tick (omg it costs to x percent to service debt. How will we ever go on? )

Reduce Debt tick

Reform = growth tick

There’s nothing in it at all remotely clear or useful to a voter who wants stuff fixing asap. Can you imagine if Labour talked in those terms instead of second hand city speak?

I’d love to know what an average voter thinks of that speech…

Instead of debating what we could spend money on – what is urgent. Silly politicians have laid the groundwork for the unfunded/funded nonsense that will hold us back.

Yep, it has been used as an attack line for whatever the opposite party wants to do rather than attacking what they are actually trying to do.  It really is set in in majority of peoples minds now so not sure how that can be reverse.  Starmer/Reeves will not even be attempting it as they are using the same BS.

As a centrist, I am bitterly disappointed with Starmer and the direction the party has taken, and have said so on here a few times.

But I’d sooner have a Labour/Starmer government than a Tory government, which is tbe bottom line for me.

So exactly the same position as me then, although it would be fairer to describe me as far-left rather than centrist.

The single most important goal in my opinion is the defeat of the Tories and any credibility they might have in the eyes of the electorate, their failed neoliberal policies should be consigned to history.

We cannot possibly move forward if the Tories are still considered a credible party of government who will serve the interests of ordinary people.

So for that reason I passionately hope that Labour achieves a staggeringly huge majority in this year’s general election.

I know that today’s Labour Party does not offer any solutions which are significantly different to the Tories’s, but surrendering and allowing the Tories to govern is also not a solution.

Those who want to change society in a meaningful way need to fight each battle one at a time. Right now the battle is to kick the Tories out. However it does not mean that you simply embrace repackaged Tory policies in the meantime.

Being dishonest with the electorate because you think that they can’t handle the truth doesn’t sound like a step forward imo. Even though the Tories have very successful used that tactic for decades.

I’d love to know what an average voter thinks of that speech…

The average voter won’t have listened to it. The average voter ‘knows’ that the NHS will get more money from Labour and that while public services might get cut, the countries ‘finances’ will be ‘better’ under the Tories, and that’s if they pay any attention at all to national politics. I’ve met reasonably intelligent folks who would struggle to put Labour/Tory into the correct left/right paradigm, or even give a coherent explanation of what those phrases mean, let alone speak sensibly about differences in macro/micro economic policy. People get paid, they try not to look at NI/Tax deductions and they get on with their lives.

Reeves is signalling to the people who will comment on the speech that the average voter may hear on the radio on the drive home (while they really concentrate on what’s for tea tonight) that Labour will keep to spending pledges and might think “Oh, that might mean my taxes might not go up in Labour get in. If they’re not too bonkers I might vote for them this time”

Politics is a beauty contest. End.

I agree with everything in Ernie’s post. I just remain more optimistic (perhaps unwisely, but that’s just me)

“Being dishonest with the electorate because you think that they can’t handle the truth doesn’t sound like a step forward imo.”

You’ve answered your own point though, being honest isn’t going to achieve what you clearly outlined in the rest of your post. Getting the electorate back to a point where they can handle sensible debate is like many things years off.

Battle one, get the Tories out and get Labour in.

“There’s nothing in it at all remotely clear or useful to a voter who wants stuff fixing asap.”

Er, that’s just your opinion man. There’s a direct criticism of tory economic policy and its outcome, and statements about what labour would do differently. “Second hand city speak” given her background it’s not second hand unlike most of what I see here.

Do you think this mess can be fixed in under 10 years?

Do you think this mess can be fixed in under 10 years?

A lot of things could be fixed in 1 year if they had the will to do it.  It is simply about choices they want to make.

People would notice that stuff has been fixed that quickly and as most don’t have a **** clue about how a countries finances work it doesn’t really matter what is happening over there as that is irrelevant to their lives.

Do you think this mess can be fixed in under 10 years?

If the strategy is to go into the two general elections following this year’s one with “this mess” unfixed then I reckon it is fair to say that we won’t be having a Labour majority government for very long.

“Jam in over 10 years time” doesn’t sound like much of a vote winner to me.

Do you think this mess can be fixed in under 10 years?

If we just become the first nation on Earth to move to MMT and become the richest country ever, Reeves could get it all done in an afternoon over tea with the Bank of England!

Being dishonest with the electorate because you think that they can’t handle the truth doesn’t sound like a step forward imo.

The electorate might be able to comprehend the situation if you sat down and explained it to them, but that’s not how politics works.  It’s not about telling the electorate what you plan to do and why it’s a good idea.  It’s about taking anything and everything your opponent says and twisting it to use against them by any means possible.  The less the electorate know, the less able they are to spot your bullshit, which means you have more opportunities to manipulate them.

It’s not how it should work, but it does.  One defence against this is not to say anything that can be criticised.

————————– ————————— ————————
“Jam in over 10 years time” doesn’t sound like much of a vote winner to me.
————————– ————————— ————————

It worked in 2016… and we’re at 8 years without even the hint of blossom on the trees, never mind fruit to make Jam with.

Labour (if they win) need to be able to show in 5 years time that things are turning around, with an understanding and acceptance that there’s far more to do. If they go into this election claiming they can fix everything within 5 years (never mind in the first year) and then don’t deliver that… they’ll be doubly done for… support at this election will drop (they’ll lose trust promising what looks undeliverable) and support at the next election will be all but non-existent as failure to deliver what is in the 2024 manifesto will be hung around their neck… they won’t get the easy ride that others have had in the media with their complete failure to deliver.

If we just become the first nation on Earth to move to MMT

Since MMT describes how money works in an economy with its own fiat currency I think you might struggle to find a nation on earth that hasn’t ‘moved to MMT’.

Since MMT describes how money works in an economy with its own fiat currency I think you might struggle to find a nation on earth that hasn’t ‘moved to MMT’.

Partly

“A lot of things could be fixed in 1 year if they had the will to do it. ”

Perhaps you can expand on that – what would be fixed in a year, by which competently trained people, with what adequate funding amd materials?

“Jam in over 10 years time” doesn’t sound like much of a vote winner to me.

It worked in 2016…

Firstly your memory is obviously different to mine, I don’t recall anyone promising jam after 2026.

And what do you mean it “worked”? Are you suggesting that the Tories will remain in government until at least after 2026?

There is no doubt that Labour can win the general election in a few months time. But there is no evidence that they are likely to win the following two general elections if they don’t deliver.

How much faith to you expect the electorate to have in a Labour government which says that it will need over 10 years to clear “this mess?”

It is stretching “trust me, I’m a Labour politician” to the very limits.

[ deleted – more dupe posting ]

I’m suggesting the vote was won, based on benefits that would take years to deliver. That is all. And so far zilch delivered.

Unlike the unaccountable Leave campaigns, Labour have to deliver. And that includes honesty about how long things will take. Promise everything will be sunny by 2029… lose in 2029… because even if things are turning around, they’ll be plenty more required.

Perhaps you can expand on that – what would be fixed in a year, by which competently trained people, with what adequate funding amd materials?

Whatever the top 5 things that need fixing are.  With money comes competently trained people, funding and materials.  People forget that the government can do a lot of things when it has a massive majority (big assumption) and can steamroller over anything in it’s way – again, if it is has the will to do it.