UK Election!

I’m not sure many “centrist” or left wing voters read or are influenced by the Torygraph. Very much preaching to their own choir.

No Tory voters read the Daily Telegraph, obviously.

The very people that Starmer is apparently trying to appeal to. Or are you going to deny that?

Starmer regularly writes articles for Daily Telegraph readers to read.

Fill yer boots:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/authors/k/ka-ke/keir-starmer/

This is rather flawed logic.

So swing voters are allowed to look at policies and decide which way to vote and hence policies need to be aimed at them?

It’s not flawed logic, it’s the reality of how you win elections. You may not like the fact, neither do I particularly, but it is what it is

Under apartheid in SA there was a definite pecking order something along the lines of 1. whites (but differences between Boers and others). 2. Asians . 3 ‘Cape coloureds’ 4. black Africans 5. San. In Abbott’s defence, it would be ludicrous to suggest that everyone suffered/s under racism equally and I’m pretty sure gingers weren’t categorised under the Group Areas Act. The fuss over Abbott’s letter seems more of a culture war over the race to the greatest victimhood to fit whatever agenda.

It’s not flawed logic, it’s the reality of how you win elections

If and only if people play along.

As soon as they decide not to then the party has to adapt or in the case of the labour rightwingers shout about tory enablers whilst busily changing the party to attract tories.

So again why should left wingers provide an unconditional vote to labour vs taking the same approach as the centrists?

No policies which appeal, no vote.

I’m pretty sure gingers weren’t categorised under the Group Areas Act.

It’s a very British thing.

TBH, if Starmer appeared at the lectern outside No 10 and said:

“It’s all been lies, we’re winding the clock back, nationalising essential industries, applying to join the EU forthwith, filing our own arrest warrant for Netanyahu and outlawing private education”.

I would be delighted.

But what I want is all secondary to what we all need – this incarnation of the Tories out of power.

Okay let’s take one step back and leave the labels alone.

Simply construct good arguments and offer appropriate solutions.

There are no good arguments nor solutions coming out of the Labour camp currently. Just reactionary manoeuvres around a collapsing Tory party.

Every time Reeves or Starmer say the public finances are in disarray it’s a flat out lie design to cosy certain voters. Sort of like telling your kid Santa exists so teddies aren’t thrown.

The public finances are always good to go – hence the magic of the COVID measures being delivered out of nowhere for the sum of circa 400bn.

Parliamentary record.

So when we talk about spending 28bn a year being a squeeze, it’s a fundamental lie – depriving millions of a better future.

If  Labour spent more time with pragmatic well argued solutions they might not need to keep shifting policy to the right to appeal the very people the Sunak thread hates!

fenderextender
Free Member
TBH, if Starmer appeared at the lectern outside No 10 and said:

“It’s all been lies, we’re winding the clock back, nationalising essential industries, applying to join the EU forthwith, filing our own arrest warrant for Netanyahu and outlawing private education”.

I would be delighted.

But what I want is all secondary to what we all need – this incarnation of the Tories out of power.

This is where I am at.

“It’s all been lies, we’re winding the clock back, nationalising essential industries, applying to join the EU forthwith, filing our own arrest warrant for Netanyahu and outlawing private education

But the point is no one is asking for everything all at once just a few good ideas that would run.  Starmer has toasted the few good ideas.

I mean, I can tolerate flags and water nationalisation at the same time.

But being honest in politics appears to be a rare thing these days. No wonder people say they’re all the same.

But what I want is all secondary to what we all need – this incarnation of the Tories out of power.

I hate to tell you but the Tories will be back in power, it’s just a question of when.  A lot of people seems to be pretending that the size of the majority matters.

It doesn’t.  Not anymore.

The swing in this election is going to be huge but that’s just the way things are now.  People are voting out of disillusionment with a party rather than because they believe in what they are being sold.

It all points to a democracy that is in crisis and unless someone acknowledges this and starts giving people something to actually believe in and vote for then it’s just going to be a cycle of voting parties out of power rather than into power and ever more extreme forms of populism.

This is where I am at.

Then don’t expect much change if you don’t set out what you would like to happen beyond this.

Progressives have been smacked around and the plan is to beat you down. Don’t fall for it and hand the money to the people creating problems for us.

Or don’t spend ages moaning about Tories because you’re getting Conservative driven ideas from Labour party. I don’t think it’s good enough.

Every time Reeves or Starmer say the public finances are in disarray it’s a flat out lie design to cosy certain voters. Sort of like telling your kid Santa exists so teddies aren’t thrown.

The public finances are always good to go – hence the magic of the COVID measures being delivered out of nowhere for the sum of circa 400bn.

The problem with that argument is that a lot of voters feel that they are personally worse off since Covid and possibly feel that the 400bn magicked out of nowhere might have something to do with that. Trying to explain MMT to a population that fundamentally believes that the finances of the country need to be in balance or bad things happen might be a laudable aim, but probably isn’t going to get you elected.

So again why should left wingers provide an unconditional vote to labour vs taking the same approach as the centrists?

No policies which appeal, no vote.

Your prerogative of course, but by doing that you are far more likely to end up with a Tory government. But if that is the cost of adhering to your principals then bash on

I get your point, you want long term change, but ultimately as things currently stand it’s a 2 party system so whilst I disagree with much of labour policy, I know which way I’ll be voting (any way that will ensure the tories don’t win)

The problem with that argument is that a lot of voters feel that they are personally worse off since Covid and possibly feel that the 400bn magicked out of nowhere might have something to do with that. Trying to explain MMT to a population that fundamentally believes that the finances of the country need to be in balance or bad things happen might be a laudable aim, but probably isn’t going to get you elected.

You don’t need to explain MMT – but it’s relatively easy to demonstrate that deficits are normal to a functioning government using FIAT. Journalism is just so shit it never goes there.

Like a lot of Neoliberal interpretations it’s a fiction to state otherwise

Of course COVID enacted a detrimental impact but would be have been way worse without the state supporting  some of the economy. Again right-wingers like to tell you otherwise because it makes a mockery of small-state.

We are doomed to failure without big state intervention. Can you live with that just because Starmer doesn’t want to tell the truth or upset people?

rone
Full Member
“This is where I am at.”

Then don’t expect much change if you don’t set out what you would like to happen beyond this.

Progressives have been smacked around and the plan is to beat you down. Don’t fall for it and hand the money to the people creating problems for us.

Or don’t spend ages moaning about Tories because you’re getting Conservative driven ideas from Labour party. I don’t think it’s good enough.

Then what do you suggest I, as an individual voter, do about this situation at the GE?

Your prerogative of course, but by doing that you are far more likely to end up with a Tory government.

Another Tory government is inevitable.

The only question is, is it going to be a Tory government emboldened by Labour’s rightward shift to implement even more damaging policies or one that is far more cautious because Labour have shifted the centre further to the left?

Then what do you suggest I, as an individual voter, do about this situation at the GE?

Look at the party manifestos and vote for the one that most closely aligns with your views.

Every time Reeves or Starmer say the public finances are in disarray it’s a flat out lie design to cosy certain voters. Sort of like telling your kid Santa exists so teddies aren’t thrown.

The public finances are always good to go – hence the magic of the COVID measures being delivered out of nowhere for the sum of circa 400bn.

I don’t even disagree, but public sector debt related to GDP is the highest it’s been since the early 60s when the country was still paying for WWII, and you can say it doesn’t matter but plenty of people think lower debt and higher GDP would be better. You can’t wave your hands and make this go away. And for messaging during a GE a debate about how economies work versus “tories have stuffed it up, we’ll do better on growth”…  I don’t think it’s too hard to see why lab would opt for the latter.

BruceWee
Full Member
Then what do you suggest I, as an individual voter, do about this situation at the GE?

Look at the party manifestos and vote for the one that most closely aligns with your views.

We have an incumbent Tory MP, she’s been our MP since 2015.

I could make a protest by voting Green or Libdem but I might as well just stay home and hope for the best.

We gained a Labour controlled council last year and any vote here other than for Labour just aids the Tories in my constituency.

I’m not willing to do that under any circumstances.

Look at the party manifestos and vote for the one that most closely aligns with your views.

meh – IMO until we can dump FPTP, tactical voting to remove the threat of the worst thing is so much more effective than crossing yr fingers

TBH, despite them all being riddled with weaselly, platitudinous claptrap I am giving manifestos/standpoints a go and I’m increasingly coming to the view that (greens aside – see FPTP) it’s only the liberals who’re offering what I want, what I really really want for the mid=term future (PR and something approaching reversal of Brexit)

<li style=”list-style-type: none;”>
<li style=”list-style-type: none;”>

<li style=”text-align: left;”>

don’t even disagree, but public sector debt related to GDP is the highest it’s been since the early 60s when the country was still paying for WWII, and you can say it doesn’t matter but plenty of people think lower debt and higher GDP would be better. You can’t wave your hands and make this go away. And for messaging during a GE a debate about how economies work versus “tories have stuffed it up, we’ll do better on growth”…  I don’t think it’s too hard to see why lab would opt for the latter.

It’s doesn’t need to go away. It’s the Neoliberal narrative that’s a bad thing.

Public debt has been rising for several hundred years without issue to sovereign states. But I can point to the damage that is caused by paying it down. You’re never on the hook for the public debt – start there. You as an individual do not pay it down.

Clinton and Osborne’s attempts for instance to pay it down failed dismally in the wider economy and society.

Creating debt is a policy choice by the way. There is no need to match government spending with bond issuance.  (It creates a few issues but to do with overnight interests rates and clearing reserves.)

I’m not saying go the whole hog – lots of people just don’t seem to grapple with the idea the government via the BoE creates money every time it spends. Not just Covid. Right or Left. That’s how it works.

But Starmer has got it wrong that we’re constrained by lack of money. That’s the lie part.

Tackle the myth a little. Because Starmer even a few years ago agreed that the household analogy was off.

People are worse off because of the overall economic system not because of Covid – but raising interest rates was another unnecessary disaster too.

So the response was flawed of course.

Is it so hard to believe that you’ve been sold a generally piss-poor interpretation of public finances given the well accepted shoddy pro-Brexit arguments about 350mn going back to the exchequer?

Anyway it’s going to be done deal soon as Nationalisation will be the only way for Thames.  It will be forced on us- just like the private sector Banking system had to be bailed by the state. There will be no choice.

Government is the lender of last resort and the only institution with the power to solve problems like this as it issues the the pound – a tax liability that underpins all of your cash.

I could make a protest by voting Green or Libdem but I might as well just stay home and hope for the best.

Sorry, but that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how to effect real change in the country.

I’ve said this numerous times but the people who went out and voted UKIP did more to change the UK than any other voters in modern times.  All having never returned an MP.

Tories chased the UKIP voters, Labour chased the Tory voters, and before you knew it we were out of the EU and the government is UKIP in all but name.

Stay home if you want but that is the only way it is actually possible to ‘waste’ your vote.

Voting for a party you fundamentally disagree with would be worse than a waste, imo.

If the hard left don’t like the current version of the Labour Party why don’t they all toddle off and form their own party – like Reform UK have on the right.

We know how this plays out because it’s what happened twice in Scotland – Alba from the SNP and the Scottish Socialist Party from the Labour movement.

There are no good arguments nor solutions coming out of the Labour camp currently. Just reactionary manoeuvres around a collapsing Tory party…Every time Reeves or Starmer say the public finances

Yeah but this position about the government having infinite money if only it could believe hard enough is your hobby horse, isn’t it? There’s nothing Reeves could say to convince you short of totally signing up to your somewhat esoteric economic theory.

But if that is the cost of adhering to your principals then bash on

Its not the cost of adhering to my principles but the cost of the right wingers in labour adhering to their principles and then expecting votes from anyone left of Thatcher to be theirs by right.

I mean its not exactly a logically coherent argument is it? Vote for a right wing labour government which is targeting its policies at tories or get tories?

For those who are concerned about the state of the economy the  good news is that according to the next Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer there is apparently no great urgency to do anything in a hurry. The first Labour budget will be two and a half months after the general election:

Rachel Reeves has said there will be no budget until September if Labour wins the election

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/28/labour-has-no-tax-surprises-in-election-campaign-rachel-reeves-says

And apparently:

Reeves said there would be no new measures proposed or “black holes” to fill.

So it turns out that things aren’t that bad after all – the Tories have got their taxation and spending correct and there aren’t any black holes. Who knew that?

The Tories should trumpet their sound fiscal policies more. I was under the impression that things were in a mess.

BruceWee
Full Member
I could make a protest by voting Green or Libdem but I might as well just stay home and hope for the best.

Sorry, but that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how to effect real change in the country.

No yeah change van happen with another 5 years of Tory governance. It’s a simple matter of fact.

I and millions of others will be voting for the party that has the best chance of unseating their Tory MP and the party itself.

To do anything else is just fanciful thinking and I’ll be no part of it.

We fundamentally disagree here, which is fine but I have one singular goal at this point and that is to rid us of the current Tory party.

Until that point they will get my unconditional vote given the constituency I live in.

That’s all I’ll say on this for the moment, you disagree and I respect that but neither of us will change our stance here.

Yeah but this position about the government having infinite money if only it could believe hard enough is your hobby horse, isn’t it? There’s nothing Reeves could say to convince you short of totally signing up to your somewhat esoteric economic theory.

Technically incorrect, but expected from you.

The government doesn’t hold cash.

It creates what it needs to spend by marking up accounts from the BoE consolidated fund – which is then spent into existence at commercial accounts making its way into the non-governmental sector.

You are defending the Tory lie of lack of money from an institution that creates it. It’s so ignorant as to being ridiculous.

Who the hell do you think creates the pound and the currency we use?

As a Centrist you have been conned into a world where solutions can’t possibly exist because according to your false logic there is only one pot of money that has ever been swilling around since the gold standard went away.  Spend one minute thinking about that.

Why does the national debt grow then?

It grows because money is added to it, because it is a normal function.

Reeves is wrong; she’s just excusing Tory policy.  You tell me where the pound comes from then if this view is esoteric?

I’m glad you want the future to be even more unfit for purpose than it already is.

We fundamentally disagree here, which is fine but I have one singular goal at this point and that is to rid us of the current Tory party.

This, and only this.

I and millions of others will be voting for the party that has the best chance of unseating their Tory MP and the party itself.

To do anything else is just fanciful thinking and I’ll be no part of it.

Then we can look forward to an even more extreme version of the current Tory government in 5 years time.

Intentionally voting for no real change and expecting things to change is fanciful thinking.

If truss taught us one thing its that the markets dont like unfunded spending

Ive not heard any MMT proponents explain how that can be dodged

anyway I see Iain Dales plan to become an  MP was short lived

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1796472660773261454

personally I dont think it was just his comments, I think he just  saw the dire state of the Tory party

Then we can look forward to an even more extreme version of the current Tory government in 5 years time.

Intentionally voting for no real change and expecting things to change is fanciful thinking.

It’s just come down to power. That’s it. Nothing else.

The fundamentals of a progressive society are being destroyed because red team good blue team bad.

We’re gonna find out soon enough.

If truss taught us one thing its that the markets dont like unfunded spending

There’s loads of things that the Market doesn’t like. Were you under the impression that Market knows best?

The primary role of a government is to control the Market. All the problems that inevitably arise are the result of the behaviour of the Market.

We’re gonna find out soon enough.

Some will some won’t.

Some will be mortified by the failure of a Starmer government to deliver. Some will simply carry on making excuses…….“do you want the Tories to win the next general election?”

Edit: I reckon that I have a reasonably good idea who will be disappointed on here and who won’t be. It’s fairly obvious imo.

I’ve said this numerous times

not as many times as other frequent flyers have said  money is just like a concept, man, or something, and they’re all the same anyway so don’t vote labour. I’m going to hope this topic now sinks.

.

I’ve said this numerous times but the people who went out and voted UKIP did more to change the UK than any other voters in modern times. All having never returned an MP.

UKIP (and Reform) isn’t really a repeatable trick though.  It’s effectively a one-trick pony that has appeal to parts of both sides of the political spectrum (’til they meet round the back somwehere) – xenophobic, spiteful arseholes.  One very identifiable approach, attracting voters with one overarching “principle”.  I don’t think the logic can apply to any of the current established parties (even greens have too many points in their approach to identify the single issue).  I mean, maybe you could start a “Brexin” or “PR” party and perhaps get the same sort of pseudoreferendum voting – bit like the occasional anti-sleaze candidate

Tories chased their xenophobes to “the right” (really just in xenophobe terms until Truss, anyway); labour seems to have taken the view that there’s more chance of picking up worried tory-lite voters than of winning back their “own” arseholes by going more UKIP themselves.

f truss taught us one thing its that the markets dont like unfunded spending

Ive not heard any MMT proponents explain how that can be dodged.

I think I’ve mentioned it many many times.

Firstly I would say there is a problem with a society that builds its democratic structure on what is needed to best serve based on the what the markets think. Markets are enabled by government not the other way around.

Second: there is no such thing as unfunded or funded. It simply doesn’t work like that. Just because the press ran with that doesn’t make it so.

Third: the Truss situation was complex and had more to do with  LDI – over leveraged assets supporting the pension structure.

Fourth: BoE stepped in and solved the issue pretty quickly as it should

Fifth: Using Truss as an example of why we can never had nice things because of xyz is a crazy way of framing policy. New Hospital, can’t have one – because  of Truss and markets!

Sixth: interest rates were already on their way up.  That’s mandated by the government.

Seventh: BoE were hardly upfront about the potential LDI issues brewing.

I’m not supporting Truss but a democratic government should be free to implement what is needs to otherwise we get to where we are now. An grossly oversimplified and nonsensical reaction to a right-wingers version of events.

Here is more detail of what actually happend.

Did Liz Truss really cause the bond market rout?

All largely irrelevant to MMT and this discussion. MMT happens all the time irrespective. That’s the current explanation for spending, pretty robustly documented.

So Starmer’s crises of his own making rumbles on with more heavyweights piling on the very public Labour discord.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/31/scottish-labour-anas-sarwar-allow-diane-abbott-run-in-election

 

His comments came as splits were emerging among senior party figures, with Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, telling the Guardian Abbott had not been treated “fairly or appropriately” by some Labour colleagues and she “doesn’t see any reason” why Abbott could not run now the party whip had been restored.

 

The London mayor, Sadiq Khan, the shadow health secretary, Wes Streeting, and the shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, have also expressed some form of uneasiness with the party’s treatment of Britain’s first black female MP.

Edit: To be clear Sadiq Khan, Wes Streeting, and Yvette Cooper, are all very much on the right-wing of the Labour Party (they wouldn’t be senior party figures if they weren’t)

So whatever this might once have been it is certainly no longer Left v Right. Well done Morgan McSweeney and David Evans *slow hand clap*

It’s effectively a one-trick pony that has appeal to parts of both sides of the political spectrum (’til they meet round the back somwehere) – xenophobic, spiteful arseholes

This is lazy stereotyping. Whilst the really keen ones did tick that box there was a large number who supported brexit for a variety of reasons. Ranging from people of Asian descent who felt the immigration policies favoured Europeans over their families to those who simply felt unrepresented by parties which expected their votes but then ignored them to chase the swing voters.

Labour are chasing the arsehole vote currently. The people who expect the country to be run just for them and have no concept of compromise to either the left or right.  The people who screwed up both their party and the country and having trashed their party beyond repair now want labour as a replacement.

UKIP (and Reform) isn’t really a repeatable trick though.

It may well be a non repeatable trick but be good to test that wouldn’t.  If for example the Green Party got a lot more votes (I don’t know, maybe from younger voters) who want a left wing party who are not trying to follow the tories would Labour recognise that they are getting closer to them in the polls/elections and try to sway the other way?

UKIP (and Reform) isn’t really a repeatable trick though.

I think I would like to see the idea tested before we resign ourselves to a rightwing death spiral.