UK Government Thread

You are ware this is the only way to actually get anything done, right?

Yes, you can’t make desperately needed changes to the benefits system if you’re in opposition.

How would you have felt if Jeremy Corbyn won in 2019…?

I think we all know the answer to that. There aren’t enough monty python memes in the world for 5 years of a Corbyn govt. We should probably be grateful it never happened.

but instead chose to use it to get rid of a few leftie MPs who he doesn’t like.

I doubt what they did will survive even 24hours of news cycle given what else is going on, so what did they achieve exactly?

I’m really struggling with your die hard “Labour til I die” approach here, come what may… You’ve witnessed the party become a centre-right party under Starmer, a “Tory-Lite”

Erm… no I haven’t.  If anyone uses the word ‘Tory-light’, it just guarentees that I switch off and ignore everything after that point as its clearly patent bollocks. This present incarnation of the Labour Party under Starmer is a pretty accurate representation of my centrist (booooo, hisss bastards!) viewpoint on the world, which is why I’m an active Labour party member.

How would you have felt if Jeremy Corbyn won in 2019

Yeah, like that was ever likely to happen? That’s like asking me what I’d do once I set foot on the surface of the moon. Magic Grandad was an electoral liability in 2017, by 2019 he was a walking recruiting shop for the Tories. He may as well have walked around waving a huge VOTE TORY banner

but instead chose to use it to get rid of a few leftie MPs who he doesn’t like.

They got rid of themselves.

I don’t think anyone does, but it still needs to be in the department’s budget, and they’re arguing that 1. the exercise to see what does and doesn’t get into the dept’s spending budget is happening, now, and 2 the right place/time to announce this sort of stuff is the budget, once you’ve got a handle on all the spending commitments.

True perhaps, Nick, but this goes straight to the heart of the idea the books must be balanced somehow and that there’s a limited amount of money in the government’s “bank account”.

People can no longer deny that vast amount of currency can be magicked out of the air when there’s a crisis — well, hasn’t anyone checked the state of the country recently? Calling it an “omnicrisis” would be being kind.

They got rid of themselves

No Starmer got rid of them in a fit of ideological purity, all they did was register their unease with the way the party was kicking the issue into the long grass.

is a pretty accurate representation of my centrist (booooo, hisss bastards!) viewpoingt

You do realise where the term centrist comes from don’t you? If you are in the centre you are by definition closer to the Tories. So you might not like  the term Tory-lite but it is more accurate than the term “cranks” which you use to describe politicians which you don’t agree with.

Yeah, like that was ever likely to happen?

What, because of the first-past-the-post voting system?

It would have been perfectly possible for Labour to have won a general election under Corbyn, he almost managed it with one hand tied behind his back battling the Tories, the right-wing press, and the right-wing of his party, he robbed the Tories of their majority.

Are you seriously suggesting that with an extra push it could not have been done?

The second general election was obviously a disaster with the Brexit Party not standing in Tory winnable seats and the right-wing had upped their game accusing him of being a racist and stabbing him in the back daily. But he still managed to get only 2% less than Starmer did this month and on a higher turnout, half a million votes more than Starmer was his worse result.

I do agree with you binners that Labour stood a very poor chance of winning a general election under Corbyn, but that is only because the right-wingers were never ever going to allow Corbyn to become PM.

On the other hand if everyone, including you, had united behind the then Labour leader then I think it highly feasible that Labour would have won, and in fact likely.

A fit of ideological purity?

I don’t think its the labour leadership presently being guilty of that, more so the not-so-magnificent seven.

They voted against a manifesto pledge, 2 weeks into a new government, going against a 3 line whip, after being told (as if they needed to be) what would happen if they did so

Any MP doing that in any party would have the whip withdrawn. They knew that and did it anyway

Therefore they got what they knew they were going to get, but then thats exactly what they were looking for anyway – to posture to their supporters in the common room. Down with this sort of thing etc, etc…

I doubt anyone will miss them. Its not like any of them were running the risk of bothering the front bench. Keir just helped them with their aim of even further irrlevence and was no doubt delighted to see the back of them. They can sit next to Grandad and grumble bitterly together and maybe discuss the situation in Venezuela

I get that, but there has to be some sort of accountability for the day to spending of the depts, there can’t be just chaos and funding stuff ‘just’ becasue it’s a bad headline, or even that it seems vital. How many of us were abreast of the absolute shit-show the prisons were for example until they started letting prisoners out early?

 the idea the books must be balanced somehow and that there’s a limited amount of money in the government’s “bank account”.

There are still limits to the amount of spending that any [westernised mixed] economy can absorb without; risking inflation – increases of which are felt by the least well off, increasing taxes to remove excess money from the economy, – that massively popular route that the public really enjoy and politically is almost never noticed by anyone ever especially when enacted by Labour, or increased borrowing (which now post 2022 has its own set of outcomes, c.f. Kwarteng et al)

No Starmer got rid of them in a fit of ideological purity, all they did was register their unease

I see the opposite… They got themselves suspended in thier own fit of ideological purity.

Now if they had abstained to prove the point, and were subsequently suspended.. Then that would be on  Starmer.

What’s the phrase? **** about and find out… They are now in the finding out stage.

A fit of ideological purity?

I don’t think its the labour leadership presently being guilty of that

So what the hell do you think this is?

Rachel Reeves: Labour’s fiscal rules ‘non-negotiable’

Rachel Reeves: Labour’s fiscal rules ‘non-negotiable’

Child welfare is being sacrificed due to a rigid and unbending ideological commitment to fiscal prudence

There are still limits to the amount of spending that any [westernised mixed] economy can absorb without; risking inflation – increases of which are felt by the least well off, increasing taxes to remove excess money from the economy, – that massively

You’re are totally correct.

MMT is very clear about inflation risk. Taxation is the mechanism by which it is controlled. (Remove money)

We are not talking about the same sort  inflation that we have seen since COVID either. (supply side.)

Realistically there are huge gaps in the UK for spending. We would be a long way from inflation if it can be resourced adequately.

That is the real limit.

Magic Grandad was an electoral liability in 2017, by 2019 he was a walking recruiting shop for the Tories. He may as well have walked around waving a huge VOTE TORY banner

Corbyns policies were more aligned to the Nordic/scandinavin model which I believe would have had immense benefits to the nation, it’s a shame the press and the centrist/right leaning members of his own party stitched him right up.

Child welfare is being sacrificed due to a rigid and unbending ideological commitment to fiscal prudence

Well exactly – are people blinded by what is actually going on here?

Made-up fiscal rules that have no body of evidence behind them – is the very definition of ideological purity.

Reeves has it back to front – she believes it’s fiscally prudent to balance the books but it’s actually fiscally irresponsible.

(Looking at you Osborne and Clinton.)

It’s definitely not ideologically pure to want to help support children in this way. It’s pragmatic; it will help grow the economy and be the start of something to affect material conditions.

There is no argument. Starmer and co are showing total lack of pragmatism.

When the authority of a party sits above these possible societal benefits you know it’s a bad play.

When you embrace “fiscal rules,” however flexible/tokenistic/clever you believe them to be, don’t be surprised when they’re draped around your neck and tightened by media/opposition parties the moment you begin to govern.

— Stephanie Kelton (@StephanieKelton) July 8, 2024

Corbyns policies were more aligned to the Nordic/scandinavin model which I believe would have had immense benefits to the nation

The nation didn’t think so. In the worst choice ever offered to the British elctorate they chose, by some considerable margin, an oversexed honey monster

it’s a shame the press and the centrist/right leaning members of his own party stitched him right up.

Complete nonsense. He lost because he was Jeremy Corbyn, a man who should never been anywhere near the leadership of the labour party. Simple as that. I do know how you lot love a consiracy theory though

Corbyn is anti EU and anti nuclear deterrent.. Those two points alone, without even starting at looking at any of his other policies made him a liability and a write off in my book.

Yeah, like that was ever likely to happen? That’s like asking me what I’d do once I set foot on the surface of the moon. Magic Grandad was an electoral liability in 2017, by 2019 he was a walking recruiting shop for the Tories. He may as well have walked around waving a huge VOTE TORY banner

So you were happy that the Tories won in 17 and 19 then…? And the subsequent shitshow that ensued…

Cos again, I distinctly remember differently!

I’m glad you’re glad that you think you’ve “won” binners… Again though, this isn’t a football match! It’s not City vs United… Starmer might be eminently more palatable than a hard right wing Tory Govt right now, but his still right of centre politics and policies, not to mention his utter disdain for democracy, aided by the built in undemocratic FPTP system, is just fast tracking the hard right swing that the UK is going to experience at the next election…

And FWIW, no I’m not advocating for a hard left wing govt… I am advocating for the Labour Party going back to being the broad church that it once was and encouraging debate and even dissent within the ranks, especially given their huge majority, rather than doubling down and forcing everyone to become a yes man so soon… A Labour Party without actual left wing voices has no hope of truly representing the masses it claims to want to serve…

The decision to suspend seven left-wing Labour MPs last night was a mistake. It was too heavy-handed. And just as bad, it's strategically unsound, creating more problems than it solves. https://t.co/UCIjMvrbZA

— Ian Dunt (@IanDunt) July 24, 2024

Dunt flipping his flop.

‘Hard left.’ FFS

Helping families = hard left.

Centrism – may as well just say a Tory that doesn’t want to pay for private health.

2 things cost labourr the 2017 election.  The labour / tory pact in Scotland which granted the tories 10 extra MPs and the continual briefing against Corbyn from the labour rightwingers

And yes this is undeniable – its even in thje labour parties report on the infighting that they were doing this.  a large faction of the labour party preferred to let the tories win than have Corbyn as PM

To deny this is to attempt to rewrite history

A Labour Party without actual left wing voices has no hope of truly representing the masses it claims to want to serve

Check who is actually in government now, both MPs, outside appointments and advisors. It’s a very broad church. A tiny handful of bank benchers have never disguised their desire not to get involved, and jumped at the first opportunity to signal that they’re not happy with the immediate plan laid out at the election. Most back benchers want the government to get on with their first few months of work, and will be willing to contribute to what happens in future.

So you were happy that the Tories won

I for one was not… But it’s nice to know the level of intelligence we are dealing with… As in ‘anyone who isn’t far left is automatically tory-light or even further right… It just undermines your position if you see things in such binary terms.

So you were happy that the Tories won in 17 and 19 then…? And the subsequent shitshow that ensued…

Eh? I’m saying that someone as usless and electorally repellent as Corbyn should never have been anywhere near the labour leadership. With more baggage than the cargo hold of a 747 he was an absolute liability and a gift to the Tory party from day one. The last two Tory governments and Brexit are all on him. The stupid old goat! The fact he didn’t go after one electoral loss was ridiculous and a testement not just to his limitless vanity, but the cult-like behaviour of his supporters

I am advocating for the Labour Party going back to being the broad church that it once was and encouraging debate and even dissent within the ranks.

Theyre not a debating society or a parish councel meeting in Hackney. They’re a government! The last lot were fond of a make-it-up-as-you-go-along, back of a fag packet aproach to policy and look where thats got us

The 7 who were booted out last night effectively booted themselves out. Like I said though, their 6th form level posturing seems to have won them the approval of exactly the group they were seeking to impress. It just proves to me that they’re just a bunch of juevenile placard-wavers who have little interest in the proper grown up business of actually doing stuff and changing things. Its all about getting likes on Twitter.

Corbynism in a nutshell. Well now they can join their hero in irrelevence. Don’t let the door hit your arse on the way out

And FWIW, no I’m not advocating for a hard left wing govt… I am advocating for the Labour Party going back to being the broad church that it once was

Surely what binners is saying is that under Corbyn’s leadership the Labour party did lean to the far left which is why Labour lost and it’s taken so long to recover. Most of us are filthy centrists.

Complete nonsense. He lost because he was Jeremy Corbyn

So this man is such an electoral liability that just a couple of weeks ago he easily defeated in a general election a candidate handpicked by Starmer?

I agree that Corbyn was a crap leader of a party heaving with right-wingers determined to maintain the status quo at any cost. But he is precisely the sort of person who his constituents want to represent them in parliament, they certainly appear to rate him higher than the Labour Party. Or at least Starmer’s chosen one.

The last two Tory governments and Brexit are all on him. The stupid old goat!

so nothing to do with Murrays labour / tory pact in ~Scotland that granted the tories 10 extra seats?

Nothing to do with the blatant briefing against Corbyn from withing the labour party?

From the forde report:

The Whatsapp messages we have
seen reveal a real antipathy towards
LOTO by Labour HQ staff after Jeremy
Corbyn won the Party leadership: and,
according to the evidence we received,
that feeling was mutual.

It was of course also true that some opponents of
Jeremy Corbyn saw the issue of antisemitism as a
means of attacking him. Thus, rather than confront the
paramount need to deal with the profoundly serious issue
of antisemitism in the Party, both factions treated it as a
factional weapon.
Etc etc etc

you must remember the daily anti corbyn briefings in the tory press from members of the labour party

So this man is such an electoral liability that just a couple of weeks ago he easily defeated in a general election a candidate handpicked by Starmer?

We need to get you out of London more often… come up North for a ride!

Like I said though, their 6th form level posturing…….they’re just a bunch of juevenile placard-wavers who have little interest in the proper grown up business

Thanks for reminding me. I had almost forgotten.

you must remember the daily anti corbyn briefings in the tory press from members of the labour party

come up North for a ride!

Nah, I feel comfortable surrounded by lefties in London. Besides I consider anything north of Marble Arch to be “North”. So Islington North in North London is proper foreign territory to me.

Edit : And whilst we are on the subject of lefties in London it might be worth remembering that Starmer’s vote went from 36k in 2919 (before he was Labour leader) to 18k a couple of weeks ago.

It seems as if the good people of Holborn and St Pancras are not very impressed with their once leftie MP turning into a centrist.

Who would have thought it?

I’ve heard a few people say that in the Labour manifesto it explicitly says they will remove the 2 child benefit cap when it can be funded.

I could have missed this. But I’ve not seen it. Anyone?

Or just made up?

you must remember the daily anti corbyn briefings in the tory press from members of the labour party

We even got that letter from that vile **** twerp Ian Austin telling us not to vote for Corbyn.

The anti-Corbyn selection box was one of the most shitty assortment of MPs to ever walk the earth.

Make Gapes, John Mann (my old MP) Ian Austin, Chris Lesley, Chuka Umunna

It’s a who’s who of deflated political right-wing farts that couldn’t quite grow a pair enough to **** off to the Tory party.

Looks like theres another one gone…

Eighth Labour MP suspended

Child welfare is being sacrificed

I mean, seriously? My (admittedly limited understanding on the matter) is that it’s a budgetary issue that will be reviewed as part of a large slew of other important budgetary issues as part of the budgetary review before the next budget is announced.

The sensible, methodical tyrants! how very dare they!

‘Sacrificed’ is a bit of a wild and alarmist term to use, given that the review has not taken place and the consensus seems to be to scrap the 2 child cap.

Starmer said: “Did you just ignore Downing Street’s shoes-at-the-door policy? When I’ve just bought a new f**king rug?”

Yeah I guess that sums up Starmer’s bullying tactics quite well. Thanks for posting binners

It seems satire and sarcasm is lost on some… :-D

If I wanted something done in government, and my party were in power and were making overtures suggesting that it was likely to be done anyway, then why would I act in a way that makes it more difficult for them to do it?

‘Sacrificed’ is a bit of a wild and alarmist term to use

If you think that’s a bit wild and alarmist what do you think of the term “social cleansing” to describe the two-child benefit cap then?

That’s how a fellow centrist like yourself has described it, as well as heinous:

The two-child benefit cap is social cleansing. Starmer must end it

https://archive.li/2024.07.20-171757/https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/rosie-duffield-mp-two-child-benefit-cap-scncpn9dd

Btw all the LibDem MPs, which you say you support, voted against the cap.

I’ve heard a few people say that in the Labour manifesto it explicitly says they will remove the 2 child benefit cap when it can be funded.

I could have missed this. But I’ve not seen it. Anyone?

Or just made up?

I don’t think it does say that. There is a section on Family Security which covers child poverty amongst other issues but without specifying detailed measures, much as I would expect from a manifesto, or ahem, a King’s Speech.

Also a Child Poverty Unit has been set up at cabinet level.

Because Corbynites want to take over the means of production and lead us all from a deluded centrist path to a socialist garden of eden (full of money trees).

It seems satire and sarcasm is lost on some… :-D

Indeed ! I was very surprised that binners posted the link!