The only thing they’ll do is set up a supply Company, and hope people switch to it, but the power/gas will still come from privatised Companies.

It’s the other way around. The publicly owned company will be generating electricity, from renewable sources only. None of us will buy from it directly… it’ll be a part of the energy supply mix, aimed at increasing the proportion of our energy coming from renewables at a faster rate (alongside a load of other measures aimed at the private companies also switching on renewables faster). They’ll be no publicly owed generation based on fossil fuels, all the gas supply remains private, and the billing companies will all stay private (for now… another energy price crunch like we’ve had recently, and I can see that having to change).

Corbyn proved twice, with open goal elections, that the country doesn’t want a ‘progressive’ socialist revolution.

And Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband proved twice that after 13 years of “centrist” government the country didn’t want any more.

So her concerns about immigration is what Wes Streeting likes about Natalie Elphicke, and it is her hardline views on immigration that Labour MPs don’t like about Natalie Elphicke

I suppose this is the labour leaderships attempt to disarm the one issue on which they’re seen as weak by the electorate. I can see why it’s tempting, given the tabloid-warped narrative on immigration it’s the goden ticket issue which will guarantee lots of votes for the party who can present themselves as the ones to sort it out. And it will work as long as left wing labour voters continue voting labour by default no matter what their policies are or what they say.

It’s the other way around.

Who cares? Labour are now a party of proud racists and bigots. They can **** off.

Workers rights, I thought we were pretty well off in that area anyway?

Not as well off as we were pre-2010.

Remember when employers couldn’t arbitrarily sack you for 2 years after hiring you?

When zero hours contracts were only used by those actually requiring them?

The apologists will be along to tell us it takes many terms to undo the damage and you have to start small. Seemingly this isn’t true if you’re breaking things as you can just wade in with a sledge hammer and do things within a single term. But rolling that back? Nope, too hard.

And Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband proved twice that after 13 years of “centrist” government the country didn’t want any more.

So the country didn’t want want a ‘progressive’ socialist revolution and got bored with centrist politics, does that just leave us with fruit loop right wing conservatism for the foreseeable. What’s the alternative, a ‘progressive’ socialist softly softly, can’t see that gaining much traction with anyone.

 A donkey with a red badge could win the next election.

Foot and Kinnock failed against Thatcher, Corbyn failed against Cameron. The Labour Party is absolutely capable of crashing this plane into the ground.

Foot and Kinnock failed against Thatcher, Corbyn failed against Cameron. The Labour Party is absolutely capable of crashing this plane into the ground.

Yup, it’s theirs to lose and by God if there’s something they’re good at it’s snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Though this is a good opportunity to remind everyone that other parties exist that aren’t offering more of the same with or without a wishful wink and a nudge.

People will only get what they fight for. Hoping for some sort of munificence from the parliamentary parties is ahistorical and naive in the extreme. When people were begging for a rent or mortgage break during the lockdown the LP was very quick to line up with the landlords and banks, don’t expect any change there.

So the country didn’t want want a ‘progressive’ socialist revolution and got bored with centrist politics, does that just leave us with fruit loop right wing conservatism for the foreseeable.

If no one is making an argument against right wing dogma, then that is the only orthodoxy that people know.

Even the Starmer supporters club on here have little problems with the Corbyn era labour policies, it seams to be just him they hate . So why then reject those policies and turn towards neoliberal tory policies? Why not keep making the argument for policies that will actually help the majority of people? If labour aren’t making those arguments how are people meant to choose a path that no one is offering to them?

The hatred of Corbyn might be something to do with his lifelong anti-racist stance and support for the Palestinians. His policies in European terms were very much middle-of-the-road. His opponents, including a majority of the shadow cabinet, preferred to have a Tory government that supported a foreign apartheid regime.

People’s views change and I’m sure many in the ‘red wall’ now realise they’d been had.

https://iandunt.substack.com/p/labour-is-inching-towards-the-right?r=217i4w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&triedRedirect=true

Some of you might find a piece about actual policy interesting

Ignore me….going mad

@Twodogs – nah.

That piece is clearly written by centralist scum.

The mistake we all made was to not give Corbyn a third chance. Third time lucky and all that.

Ps – I don’t hate Corbyn – quite the opposite actually and I voted for him twice (unlike the idealogical purists who now can’t possibly bring themselves to vote for labour…). I just don’t think he is capable of winning a GE. This is the fundamental point for me. And until labour actually get into power we can’t change **** all.

And until labour actually get into power we can’t change **** all.

And when they get into power they will change **** all.  It is not about being an ideological purist, it is expecting the Labour party to actually be a Labour party.

Foot and Kinnock failed against Thatcher, Corbyn failed against Cameron. The Labour Party is absolutely capable of crashing this plane into the ground.

That is a very selective history lesson. Brown and Miliband also both failed against Cameroon.

Despite his failure to win a general election Corbyn managed to get Labour a larger share of the vote than both Brown and Miliband did, and he did that twice.

How he managed it I’m not entirely sure as he had to do it fighting  both the Tories and the Parliamentary Labour Party simultaneously.

As a  woke leftie with a love for organic food and bicycles, and who tried to stop Brexit with his commitment to a second referendum, it is surprising that Corbyn isn’t more popular on STW.

But I guess that perhaps like the Guardian newspaper STW likes to talk the talk but not necessarily walk the walk.

The other political thread has been quite a revelation in a similar vein. After literally years of reading how much ERG Tories are despised on STW it turns out that quite a few believe that they should be welcomed into the Labour Party.

As a  woke leftie with a love for organic food and bicycles, and who tried to stop Brexit with his commitment to a second referendum, it is surprising that Corbyn isn’t more popular on STW

🤣

Poly Tonybee and Jonathan Freedland told them not to vote Corbyn and that the Tories would be better.

And when they get into power they will change **** all.  It is not about being an ideological purist, it is expecting the Labour party to actually be a Labour party.

Exactly. Anything else is wishful thinking.

That is a very selective history lesson. Brown and Miliband also both failed against Cameroon.

I don’t think it is tbh, Brown was the incumbent so there’s that, Miliband wasn’t really offering much different and the SNP destroyed them in Scotland, something they still haven’t recovered from (and won’t until they grow up and stop playing stupid games).

It is not about being an ideological purist, it is expecting the Labour party to actually be a Labour party.

Well exactly.

Nothing ever stopped the Tories from being ideological and successful did it?

Labour – lazy ripped off Neoliberal arguments supported by nothing.

It’s worse than that – it’s recycled failed Tory policy.

Change the narrative FFS.

How hard is it to point out the failures of market economics, natural monopolies, privatisation – as well as poor investment in the state. The body of evidence and doorstep conversation is one big gaping opportunity.

(PS all politics is ideological.)

the idealogical purists who now can’t possibly bring themselves to vote for labour…

Starmer is not the pragmatic one really his he? If he was he’d be offering pragmatic solutions and stop lying about things.

Ian Dunt has a track record of sweary shouty failed observations.

A liberal menace that did all he could to help the pile on for Corbyn.

Piss poor judge of character.

Rishi Sunak infinitely more impressive, reassuring and specific.

— Ian Dunt (@IanDunt) March 17, 2020

Thinks Kate Andrews is one of the good ones too.

How hard is it to point out the failures of market economics, natural monopolies, privatisation – as well as poor investment in the state. The body of evidence and doorstep conversation is one big gaping opportunity.

I thought, just for one second, that you were going to manage not mention MMT 🙄

Ian Dunt has a track record of sweary shouty failed observations

Maybe so, but at least he bothers to read and analyse what Starmer says, even if you disagree with his conclusions. 90% of posters on this and the other thread just keep banging on about how awful Starmer is, and are so naive they’d rather have another 5 years of the Tories than recognise that if you don’t get elected, you can’t do anything.  Pragmatism seems to be a mortal sin to some.

I thought, just for one second, that you were going to manage not mention MMT 🙄

He didn’t. I read the quote of his which you copied and pasted and cannot see any mention of MMT.

Not explicitly

Which bit of the quote that you copied and pasted do you disagree with?

The hatred of Corbyn might be something to do with his lifelong anti-racist stance and support for the Palestinians.

It’s not much of anti-racist stance if it includes obliviousness to bigotry against Jews (the anti-Semitic book, the anti-Semitic mural, his loyalty to Chris Williamson). His worldview is profoundly uncurious – it’s a binary arrangement where everyone in his camp on the main issue gets a pass on the other topics eg Hizbollah and Israelis, SF-IRA on NI. It is mind-blowing that Corbynites are not only willing to forgive Corbyn for taking money from Iranian state TV for presenting a call in show, but actually deny there was ever anything wrong with working for one of the most reactionary governments in the world. And all of this while losing two elections and still smugly saying he won the argument – as if this were all some study group.

But Corbyn is in the dustbin of history now.

Yeah let’s talk about Corbyn! At least it deflects any criticism of Starmer. And Starmer annoyingly keeps cropping up on this thread!

deny there was ever anything wrong with working for one of the most reactionary governments in the world.

I take it that you weren’t talking about Labour centrists?

Tony Blair Institute continued taking money from Saudi Arabia after Khashoggi murder:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/aug/12/tony-blair-institute-continued-taking-money-from-saudi-arabia-after-khashoggi

Ian Dunt has a track record of sweary shouty failed observations.

He reminds me of a self assured mouthy gobshite in the pub that won’t shut up until someone kicks him in the nuts and tells him to do one.

This thread is hilariously pointless.  It’s supposed to be about Starmer, but he did a major speech today about what a future Labour government’s policy would be on small boats/asylum seekers….but there’s not a single critique of it.

Everyone’s too busy arguing about previous Labour leaders and trying to out do each other with pedantry.  Utterly stupid.

90% of posters on this and the other thread just keep banging on about how awful Starmer is, and are so naive they’d rather have another 5 years of the Tories than recognise that if you don’t get elected, you can’t do anything.

Why vote for the same? We’d rather not have tory policies, that’s our entire point!

This thread is hilariously pointless. It’s supposed to be about Starmer, but he did a major speech today about what a future Labour government’s policy would be on small boats/asylum seekers….but there’s not a single critique of it.

You’re an odd one, see things where they aren’t and can’t see things where they are. The boats were discussed earlier, I didn’t feel the need to comment as it underlines the “more of the same” point perfectly.

.The boats were discussed earlier, I didn’t feel the need to comment as it underlines the “more of the same” point perfectly.

Apologies if I’ve missed it, but i can’t see any discussion of Starmer’s speech today…which is absolutely not “more of the same”

Yep, his speech has hardly blipped on social media. Is Assaf Kaplan doing his job?

This thread is hilariously pointless.  It’s supposed to be about Starmer, but he did a major speech today about what a future Labour government’s policy would be on small boats/asylum seekers….but there’s not a single critique of it.

You’ll get used to it, folk who would never vote for Starmer ever, complaining about everything he says or does, even though he, and Labour, haven’t even started their election campaign yet, or really provided details of their policies, but then again, it’ll just be ‘more of the same’, as we have a lot of clairvoyants on here 😂

For the past few months I’ve been wondering why he hasn’t just clearly stated that the whole Rwanda thing would be dismantled the moment Labour came into power. It’s a blessing that he’s now managed to come to the same conclusion. All he has to do now is repeat the exercise with a whole boatload of other Tory policies and legislation.

Hasn’t he come to the conclusion, reluctantly, that they mostly have to be kept?

He would like to do things differently but apparently a lack of money is the problem.

I had a Labour leaflet in my window until I realised it didn’t even mention Labour. I didn’t want  any neighbours to misinterpret a Union flag.  We always vote Labour (whilst holding our noses).

For the past few months I’ve been wondering why he hasn’t just clearly stated that the whole Rwanda thing would be dismantled the moment Labour came into power.

Never interrupt your enemy when they’re making a mistake.

complaining about everything he says or does, even though

Everything ? Where are the complaints about his pledge to stop the Rwanda flights?

And I am not sure why the next Labour government not pursuing the Tory Rwanda policy should be much of a talking point – what is there to talk about? Does anyone think it is a bad idea not to pursue the pointless and ridiculously expensive policy?

Could Labour even consider not scrapping a multi million pounds policy which no sensible person believes will achieve its stated aims?

I give up.  One or two of you really need to take your heads out of your own fundaments and actually read stuff or listen to stuff.

Never interrupt your enemy when they’re making a mistake.

And Napoleon dealt so well with his enemies.