New Labour Leader

[TheGunnShow 5,993]

17 hours ago, KiwiScot said:

Labour people up in arms after SKS says he will keep to tory tax and spending plans including keeping this 2 child cap limit on benefits. Including some Mayor who lost his ticket so is standing as an independent and now having a go at the "Westminister two" in general

Hmmmm. Not taking them long to throw their toys out the pram the minute the leader goes "I will continue their work, while I work out what we can do. So as to not rock the boat."

Sensible, pragmatic, safe, expected and also just before trying to nab Tory voters in by-elections. Won't go well in the Rutherglen by-election when it comes though.

Yep. It's stolid, uninspiring crap but it's fairly squarely aimed at the former pro-European/socially liberal wing of the Tories like me. If he moves too far left too soon then this large group might end up with plenty of them thinking "better the devil you know". I certainly won't be, but I don't proclaim to speak for everyone in said group.

[canarydan23 4,060]

**** punches down but won't lay a glove on anyone of the higher ups.

Shameless ****ing ****. There are some Tory MPs with a bigger social conscience than him. Knight of the realm fighting hard to defend the status quo that made him a multi-millionaire.

I think running the country should be like jury service; you're reluctantly called up to do a job you would never have actively sought. As if is, the people who become PM are the sycophants who make it their goal to reach number 10. They've no interest in making anyone's life better other than they're own. They've become PM, they've won, they're set for life regardless of what your Premiership does to millions of people. 

**** them. I'm done with Labour, I'll keep an eye on the non-Tory (both red and blue) candidates in Norwich North.

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

Well, at least Labour are admitting the pot is dry because the useless cons have spunked all the rubles on socialist policies.

[KiwiScot 1,460]

1 hour ago, canarydan23 said:

I'll keep an eye on the non-Tory (both red and blue) candidates in Norwich North.

Watch out you don't listen to them cause they'll say something and you'll lose your **** and go on some mad rant.

[Herman 9,820]

Have people got so used to populists promising them everything (and delivering **** all) that they struggle with a politician being honest about what can be offered?

[canarydan23 4,060]

35 minutes ago, Herman said:

Have people got so used to populists promising them everything (and delivering **** all) that they struggle with a politician being honest about what can be offered?

"Promising them everything"

Is that what holding Starmer to just a few of his pledges is being framed as now? Wanting a Labour government to repeal a policy that is driving a six-figure sum into child poverty, a policy that is tangibly saving peanuts and intangibly might actually be costing money when you factor in additional health costs, higher rate of impoverished children turning to crime, increased cost of their social care.

He can offer it, he's choosing not to. That makes him both dense and umpathetic. I can forgive a Tory being like that, it's how they are, but there was a time that working people held Labour leaders to a higher standard.

[dylanisabaddog 4,975]

28 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

"Promising them everything"

Is that what holding Starmer to just a few of his pledges is being framed as now? Wanting a Labour government to repeal a policy that is driving a six-figure sum into child poverty, a policy that is tangibly saving peanuts and intangibly might actually be costing money when you factor in additional health costs, higher rate of impoverished children turning to crime, increased cost of their social care.

He can offer it, he's choosing not to. That makes him both dense and umpathetic. I can forgive a Tory being like that, it's how they are, but there was a time that working people held Labour leaders to a higher standard.

I hope I'm right in saying that Starmer is keeping his head down and promises to a minimum so as not to give the Tories and the media ammunition to attack him with. I don't think that there will be any big promises until next year at the earliest. 

But, I'm starting to have my doubts. I heard a rumour last week that Lisa Nandy is going to be dropped from the Shadow Cabinet. If that happens I will despair. 

[Herman 9,820]

Not promising a load of stuff that he doesn't know if the country can afford, because he knows the brexit party have trashed the economy, is a higher standard in my book. I don't like it but I know it is more realistic.

[TheGunnShow 5,993]

1 hour ago, Herman said:

Not promising a load of stuff that he doesn't know if the country can afford, because he knows the brexit party have trashed the economy, is a higher standard in my book. I don't like it but I know it is more realistic.

Exactly how I see it. IIRC the Opposition never have full insight into finances/situations and only really find out when they get in. So I'm pretty relieved Starmer's not promising much at the moment.

Any two-bit cretin can promise the world and not deliver it.

[dylanisabaddog 4,975]

10 minutes ago, Herman said:

Not promising a load of stuff that he doesn't know if the country can afford, because he knows the brexit party have trashed the economy, is a higher standard in my book. I don't like it but I know it is more realistic.

That is a big issue and I think he's said he'll be looking for a different deal with the EU. There isn't much more he can do about that. 

By far the biggest issue is corporate tax. The economy has changed dramatically in the last 15 years and we have failed completely to keep up. We need to start taxing the likes of Amazon, Google and Apple appropriately and attack the use of offshore arrangements by UK companies. That is a huge exercise but we need to do it. It's the only way the country will be able to fund change.

We are the best in the world at tax avoidance but I'm not sure that Labour understands that or has a plan to change it. It could be that he isn't going to show his hand until much closer to the election. 

[Herman 9,820]

7 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

That is a big issue and I think he's said he'll be looking for a different deal with the EU. There isn't much more he can do about that. 

By far the biggest issue is corporate tax. The economy has changed dramatically in the last 15 years and we have failed completely to keep up. We need to start taxing the likes of Amazon, Google and Apple appropriately and attack the use of offshore arrangements by UK companies. That is a huge exercise but we need to do it. It's the only way the country will be able to fund change.

We are the best in the world at tax avoidance but I'm not sure that Labour understands that or has a plan to change it. It could be that he isn't going to show his hand until much closer to the election. 

Reforming the tax system would be a great start and rather popular amongst the electorate.Unfortunately not that popular with the media. As you mentioned in your previous post, trying not to give the British media, the vast majority right wing and loose with their taxes, any ammunition is his biggest task.He's playing it well but he risks alienating natural Labour supporters, like Dan, and it is this balance that he needs to start perfecting.

 

[TheGunnShow 5,993]

1 hour ago, Herman said:

Reforming the tax system would be a great start and rather popular amongst the electorate.Unfortunately not that popular with the media. As you mentioned in your previous post, trying not to give the British media, the vast majority right wing and loose with their taxes, any ammunition is his biggest task.He's playing it well but he risks alienating natural Labour supporters, like Dan, and it is this balance that he needs to start perfecting.

 

Yep, the bit in bold smacks it so far out of the park you'd need a passport to catch it. Pragmatism, not populism.

[Herman 9,820]

2 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Yep, the bit in bold smacks it so far out of the park you'd need a passport to catch it. Pragmatism, not populism.

Populism got us into this mess, (see numerous other countries too) but hopefully a pragmatic and sensible government can start to repair some of the damage. It's not going to be easy.

[TheGunnShow 5,993]

1 hour ago, Herman said:

Populism got us into this mess, (see numerous other countries too) but hopefully a pragmatic and sensible government can start to repair some of the damage. It's not going to be easy.

As opposed to the current shower where it's "stupidity got us intuh dis muss, y can it knot gettus aht?"

Edited July 19, 2023 by TheGunnShow

[Yellow Fever 3,821]

5 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Yep, the bit in bold smacks it so far out of the park you'd need a passport to catch it. Pragmatism, not populism.

 

1 minute ago, Herman said:

Populism got us into this mess, (see numerous other countries too) but hopefully a pragmatic and sensible government can start to repair some of the damage. It's not going to be easy.

I read somewhere that Labour today have a 24 point lead. Clearly SKS is doing something right despite the rags of the Mail, Express, Sun and these days Telegraph.

Other's it seems are far happier being in opposition than in government - where you eventually can also do something about these issues. It is not SKS's fault that he has to distance himself so completely from the Corbyn era and its utterly failed champions.

First priority has to be to win. All else follows from that.

 

[TheGunnShow 5,993]

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

 

I read somewhere that Labour today have a 24 point lead. Clearly SKS is doing something right despite the rags of the Mail, Express, Sun and these days Telegraph.

Other's it seems are far happier being in opposition than in government - where you eventually can also do something about these issues. It is not SKS's fault that he has to distance himself so completely from the Corbyn era and its utterly failed champions.

First priority has to be to win. All else follows from that.

 

Agreed. I can readily accept those who are further left-wing than I am being disgruntled, but a FPTP model is not really the place to do it. If we had a naturally more fragmented set of parties and a voting system that was more proportional then those voters would just pick a natural home party that's more in tune with them at that moment. At the moment though, just moving away from Labour helps the Tories.

Our aim as an electorate that isn't keen on this party should simply be to get them out on their ears, and ideally get the likes of the brainless Braverman and Badenoch sent to Rwanda on a one-way ticket.

What we basically have are two big tents pandering to which smaller unit within it is most within the zeitgeist at that time, disillusioning some of the others.

Edited July 19, 2023 by TheGunnShow

[Yellow Fever 3,821]

14 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Agreed. I can readily accept those who are further left-wing than I am being disgruntled, but a FPTP model is not really the place to do it. If we had a naturally more fragmented set of parties and a voting system that was more proportional then those voters would just pick a natural home party that's more in tune with them at that moment. At the moment though, just moving away from Labour helps the Tories.

Our aim as an electorate that isn't keen on this party should simply be to get them out on their ears, and ideally get the likes of the brainless Braverman and Badenoch sent to Rwanda on a one-way ticket.

What we basically have are two big tents pandering to which smaller unit within it is most within the zeitgeist at that time, disillusioning some of the others.

What's the phrase - when you're knee deep in crocodiles it's difficult to remember that your original intention was to drain the swamp.

Seems apt.

Edited July 19, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[littleyellowbirdie 2,590]

On 17/07/2023 at 19:05, keelansgrandad said:

I would choose different words KS. 

What is Labour going to do about my high mortgage they ask. We are working on it says SKS.

What would you say to the Unions on strike at the moment they ask. We would talk to them says SKS.

Would you bring Water, Energy and the Railways back to public ownership they ask. It would cost a lot of money to compensate the shareholders says SKS.

So tell us how different to the shower of siht in Government at the moment they ask. We have big ideas says SKS.

Well thanks for the big news SKS, I'm sure the voters are overwhelmed by your evasiveness. Good luck in the World Hide and Seek Championships.

Do you really want the opposition getting tied up in debating what they'd be doing right now when they can't actually do anything? As soon as that happens it opens up the door for the government to start criticising or stealing ideas if they happen to be good ideas. That sort of discussion would be great in a pluralistic system with multiple options to choose from, but in our system there's zero mileage in it, especially when the sitting government is in the spotlight for many negative reasons.

Labour's poll lead is very healthy; if all people are interested in is seeing the back of the Conservatives, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Edited July 19, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[TheGunnShow 5,993]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Do you really want the opposition getting tied up in debating what they'd be doing right now when they can't actually do anything? As soon as that happens it opens up the door for the government to start criticising or stealing ideas if they happen to be good ideas. That sort of discussion would be great in a pluralistic system with multiple options to choose from, but in our system there's zero mileage in it, especially when the sitting government is in the spotlight for many negative reasons.

Labour's poll lead is very healthy; if all people are interested in is seeing the back of the Conservatives, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Exactly, and especially this bit in bold. The bit that gets missed a bit is that both major parties are naturally big tents and one fraction within it tends to get favoured at the time, and over time their stances will subtly change to best reflect public opinion.

What I'm interested in is seeing the back of this set of Conservatives. Now if we get a set more like the likes of Kenneth Clarke, Anna Soubry, Rory Stewart etc. back within the Tory ranks, then I'll consider going back to them with my vote. Until then, no chance.

[Nuff Said 5,175]

5 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

"Promising them everything"

Is that what holding Starmer to just a few of his pledges is being framed as now? Wanting a Labour government to repeal a policy that is driving a six-figure sum into child poverty, a policy that is tangibly saving peanuts and intangibly might actually be costing money when you factor in additional health costs, higher rate of impoverished children turning to crime, increased cost of their social care.

He can offer it, he's choosing not to. That makes him both dense and umpathetic. I can forgive a Tory being like that, it's how they are, but there was a time that working people held Labour leaders to a higher standard.

From Polly Toynbee in The Guardian:

”YouGov last week found 60% of British adults it surveyed support the cap, including, alas, a majority of Labour voters. Is Labour selling its soul for votes when it should be persuading people towards more generosity of spirit?

All this reprises the runup to the 1997 election, when the particularly nasty social security secretary Peter Lilley sang his “little list” of hates, including “young ladies who get pregnant just to jump the housing queue”. He laid a trap for Labour, which had pledged to follow all Tory spending plans: his cut to single parent benefits was to be implemented (like many of Rishi Sunak’s cuts), after the election for Labour to inherit. Unlucky Harriet Harman arrived as the new secretary of state for social security obliged to implement it. Though she softened the cut to apply only to new claimants, Labour felt it had to pass this first test of its honesty. That vote was an early blooding for many new MPs, and some wept on their way into the aye lobby, while 47 rebelled and many more abstained. (Tony Blair rewarded Harman by sacking her a year later.)

But, she told me this week, it was a political and economic necessity. Though the sum was small, “The international markets were watching our every move to see if we’d renege on our spending promises.” Was it really necessary for New Labour to tie itself so tightly to every Tory plan? In retrospect, I’d say probably not, but hindsight is a fine thing. Ken Clarke, the previous chancellor, laughed and said he had no intention of sticking to his plans. But Tories always escape much scrutiny – with a mighty media claque to hide behind.

Let’s remember what happened to single parents under Labour after that. Harman’s new deal for lone parents transformed millions of lives and opportunities, with new jobcentres offering support, not castigation; before long, all family benefits rose, as they always do under Labour, with working tax credits and child credits. There were the first ever credits to pay for childcare, enabling many more to take jobs: the support of 3,500 Sure Start centres followed. What will happen to three-child families under Labour? You can bet they and all others on benefits will end up far better off, because that’s what Labour does. But only when it wins.”

(My highlighting). 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/17/labour-critics-record-keir-starmer-election-britain?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

 

[canarydan23 4,060]

I've read that. I think it's more than 60% want capital punishment back too.

Starmer's cheerleader-in-chief Toynbee needs to do better, especially when she openly acknowledges that with hindsight it was "probably" a mistake for Blair to commit to Tory spending plans.

Now with that hindsight, Starmer is doing it again.

[Nuff Said 5,175]

1 hour ago, canarydan23 said:

I've read that. I think it's more than 60% want capital punishment back too.

Starmer's cheerleader-in-chief Toynbee needs to do better, especially when she openly acknowledges that with hindsight it was "probably" a mistake for Blair to commit to Tory spending plans.

Now with that hindsight, Starmer is doing it again.

You really want to take that gamble? I get there’s a debate about how far you have to tack towards the centre, and when you reach the point where you no longer are representing your core values. But as I’ve said many times, 50% of something is infinitely more valuable than 100% of nothing.

 

The way I see it, we (the anti-Tories) have a responsibility to get this poisonous, incompetent bunch of self-interested idiots out of power before they inflict even more damage. Taking a valuable vote away from the best option to remove them and flirting with fringe parties is shirking that responsibility. Can you wake up on the morning after the election, knowing you voted with less than the maximum effectiveness to do the best for your country and be happy with that? I can’t.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

12 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Do you really want the opposition getting tied up in debating what they'd be doing right now when they can't actually do anything? As soon as that happens it opens up the door for the government to start criticising or stealing ideas if they happen to be good ideas. That sort of discussion would be great in a pluralistic system with multiple options to choose from, but in our system there's zero mileage in it, especially when the sitting government is in the spotlight for many negative reasons.

Labour's poll lead is very healthy; if all people are interested in is seeing the back of the Conservatives, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

If a Government adopts some other party's idea and its good and works then who could say it is wrong.

Lets face it if the Tories were good and fair, Labour wouldn't be needed. I didn't adpot socialism out of choice, it was a necessity.

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

12 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Exactly, and especially this bit in bold. The bit that gets missed a bit is that both major parties are naturally big tents and one fraction within it tends to get favoured at the time, and over time their stances will subtly change to best reflect public opinion.

What I'm interested in is seeing the back of this set of Conservatives. Now if we get a set more like the likes of Kenneth Clarke, Anna Soubry, Rory Stewart etc. back within the Tory ranks, then I'll consider going back to them with my vote. Until then, no chance.

That not politics, it a beauty contest.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,590]

9 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

I've read that. I think it's more than 60% want capital punishment back too.

Starmer's cheerleader-in-chief Toynbee needs to do better, especially when she openly acknowledges that with hindsight it was "probably" a mistake for Blair to commit to Tory spending plans.

Now with that hindsight, Starmer is doing it again.

 

7 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

You really want to take that gamble? I get there’s a debate about how far you have to tack towards the centre, and when you reach the point where you no longer are representing your core values. But as I’ve said many times, 50% of something is infinitely more valuable than 100% of nothing.

 

The way I see it, we (the anti-Tories) have a responsibility to get this poisonous, incompetent bunch of self-interested idiots out of power before they inflict even more damage. Taking a valuable vote away from the best option to remove them and flirting with fringe parties is shirking that responsibility. Can you wake up on the morning after the election, knowing you voted with less than the maximum effectiveness to do the best for your country and be happy with that? I can’t.

Exactly why PR is needed; let the left-leaning public decide in what ratios they want Blairites and Corbynites in parliament instead of leaving it to an internal Labour bun fight.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 19/07/2023 at 07:13, Herman said:

Have people got so used to populists promising them everything (and delivering **** all) that they struggle with a politician being honest about what can be offered?

I've said it long and often. There is no difference in policies between Labour and Tory. But it is amusing to see lefties now justifying Tory policies just because the Labour leader supports those policies 

[Herman 9,820]

4 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

I've said it long and often. There is no difference in policies between Labour and Tory. But it is amusing to see lefties now justifying Tory policies just because the Labour leader supports those policies 

Not knowing if the country can afford to repeal the policy is not support, it is a non-populist approach to A) a right wing bear trap and B) the country's finances.

[Herman 9,820]

20 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

From Polly Toynbee in The Guardian:

”YouGov last week found 60% of British adults it surveyed support the cap, including, alas, a majority of Labour voters. Is Labour selling its soul for votes when it should be persuading people towards more generosity of spirit?

All this reprises the runup to the 1997 election, when the particularly nasty social security secretary Peter Lilley sang his “little list” of hates, including “young ladies who get pregnant just to jump the housing queue”. He laid a trap for Labour, which had pledged to follow all Tory spending plans: his cut to single parent benefits was to be implemented (like many of Rishi Sunak’s cuts), after the election for Labour to inherit. Unlucky Harriet Harman arrived as the new secretary of state for social security obliged to implement it. Though she softened the cut to apply only to new claimants, Labour felt it had to pass this first test of its honesty. That vote was an early blooding for many new MPs, and some wept on their way into the aye lobby, while 47 rebelled and many more abstained. (Tony Blair rewarded Harman by sacking her a year later.)

But, she told me this week, it was a political and economic necessity. Though the sum was small, “The international markets were watching our every move to see if we’d renege on our spending promises.” Was it really necessary for New Labour to tie itself so tightly to every Tory plan? In retrospect, I’d say probably not, but hindsight is a fine thing. Ken Clarke, the previous chancellor, laughed and said he had no intention of sticking to his plans. But Tories always escape much scrutiny – with a mighty media claque to hide behind.

Let’s remember what happened to single parents under Labour after that. Harman’s new deal for lone parents transformed millions of lives and opportunities, with new jobcentres offering support, not castigation; before long, all family benefits rose, as they always do under Labour, with working tax credits and child credits. There were the first ever credits to pay for childcare, enabling many more to take jobs: the support of 3,500 Sure Start centres followed. What will happen to three-child families under Labour? You can bet they and all others on benefits will end up far better off, because that’s what Labour does. But only when it wins.”

(My highlighting). 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/17/labour-critics-record-keir-starmer-election-britain?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

 

On a similar theme here is an interesting opinion piece from Martin Kettle.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/20/starmers-caution-infuriates-some-in-labour-but-theres-method-in-his-mildness

[canarydan23 4,060]

5 hours ago, Herman said:

Not knowing if the country can afford to repeal the policy is not support

I know the country can afford to repeal the policy. Starmer's knows the country can afford to repeal the policy. Stella Creasy, not someone from the left edges of the party, has recently made a similar point to the one I made about the intangibles and cost of the consequences of the policy by stating that it is "potentially costing more than it is saving".

Let that sink in. Potentially using taxpayers money to push children into poverty. And it being openly supporting by the leader of the Labour Party. And "Labour supporters" shrugging their shoulders or even saying, "yeah, good politics that".

We're through the looking glass.

[Barbe bleu 832]

36 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

I know the country can afford to repeal the policy. Starmer's knows the country can afford to repeal the policy. Stella Creasy, not someone from the left edges of the party, has recently made a similar point to the one I made about the intangibles and cost of the consequences of the policy by stating that it is "potentially costing more than it is saving".

Let that sink in. Potentially using taxpayers money to push children into poverty. And it being openly supporting by the leader of the Labour Party. And "Labour supporters" shrugging their shoulders or even saying, "yeah, good politics that".

We're through the looking glass.

If I were you, I would do the unthinkable and vote conservative.

Labour don't need to work for the left wing vote so they don't try to.  That's left you, and millions like you, without a political  home since the mid 90s and its left the Labour party desperate to tell the world it isn't like the tories and that its mega radical whilst having a manifesto that is near enough identical in all but fringe matters.

Corbyn was absolute poison and his memory needs burying utterly but some of his policies, now abandoned, did resonate.   A few more years of Conservatives might actually be in the long term interests of the Labour left as it will force the party to ask questions of itself and not just adopt the tory centre fot the next 8-12 years until it is the turn of the blues again.