Luckily I’ve avoided the property conundrum by living in a caravan
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
It's not like massive wealth was being handed down to people in the past either. I think it's more that on average people become less idealistic and more conservative (small c) as they get older. Which makes sense when you spend decades watching most politicians promises turn out to be empty, and grow to understand that there isn't actually much natural justice in the world. People tend to become a lot more focused on protecting what they have, and looking after their immediate families rather than wider society as a whole.
Is there not a pretty big predicted disparity between homeowners and renters, generation wise? I'm not speaking solely about inheritance, but accumulation of property/wealth.
Looking very briefly at a couple studies, it seems that political attitudes remain pretty stable over the long term.
You have selected one single policy.
What about all those policies put forward by Corbyn at the last election?
Poll ratings are one thing.
Actually getting elected is a whole different thing.
I've selected the most essentially left wing policy which exists and demonstrated its popularity across various sectors. There is no more left wing policy than nationalization.
The idea that New Labour were elected on the basis of centrist politics (whatever that even means, people seem to use that term as if it actually means something or as code for 'not left wing' depending on the argument they're making at the time) is just a fundamental lack of knowledge and understanding. Putting aside my misgivings about what they did in government, 1997 happened because they offered a package which was bold by the standards of the time.
Putting aside the collapse of the Tories, New Labour won so convincingly because a pact was drawn up between a then-influential centre left faction who supplied a core of progressive economic policies, and a well-connected bunch of careerists who didn't really like a lot of it but were good at making everything look shiny and sensible, playing the game and managing the media. There was a degree of overlap between those groups but that was the core dynamic and both factions were important in securing that landslide victory. The tragedy of the next 13 years was that the latter were handed the keys to the party as part of the Blair/Brown agreement, convinced themselves they had all the good ideas and consequently did a load of batshit and/or self-serving stuff which made the party, themselves and their style of politics generally incredibly unpopular. The centre-left let them do it as part of the Blair/Brown pact and in doing so had blown their chance to be a truly transformative government and signed their own death warrant to boot by the time Blair stepped down. In the three elections between 1997 and 2007 Blair had packed the party executive and PLP with like-minded careerists to the detriment of talented people on the centre-left and left and in doing so he ensured that the PLP would remain politically centre-right for the foreseeable future.
The PLP by 2010 and now is a shell of what it was in 1997. In their quest for style over substance the Blairite party hierarchy ended up sacrificing both as people got handed seats because of their connections rather than because they had anything about them, and the lack of opportunities for non-Blairites led to a shrinking and stagnating centre-left/left. The current ascendent faction isn't capable of creating something as progressive as the 1997 manifesto and most of them wouldn't touch anything approaching it with a barge pole unless pushed, just as Blair and his ilk wouldn't have if they hadn't had to as part of the factional horse-trading of the 90s. The closest thing to a 1997-style offering Labour could offer now would have looked very much like what Starmer got elected to deliver in 2020 - a progressive policy platform based on the popular policies of the 2017 manifesto wrapped up and delivered in a professional package. What Starmer is actually delivering is a re-hash of what Milliband offered in 2015 - a bland idea-free mulch permeated by watered down Tory rhetoric, delivered by a group of people the public fundamentally don't like or trust.
Putting aside the collapse of the Tories, New Labour won so convincingly because a pact was drawn up between a then-influential centre left faction who supplied a core of progressive economic policies, and a well-connected bunch of careerists who didn't really like a lot of it but were good at making everything look shiny and sensible, playing the game and managing the media. There was a degree of overlap between those groups but that was the core dynamic and both factions were important in securing that landslide victory. The tragedy of the next 13 years was that the latter were handed the keys to the party as part of the Blair/Brown agreement, convinced themselves they had all the good ideas and consequently did a load of batshit and/or self-serving stuff which made the party, themselves and their style of politics generally incredibly unpopular. The centre-left let them do it as part of the Blair/Brown pact and in doing so had blown their chance to be a truly transformative government and signed their own death warrant to boot by the time Blair stepped down. In the three elections between 1997 and 2007 Blair had packed the party executive and PLP with like-minded careerists to the detriment of talented people on the centre-left and left and in doing so he ensured that the PLP would remain politically centre-right for the foreseeable future.
The PLP by 2010 and now is a shell of what it was in 1997. In their quest for style over substance the Blairite party hierarchy ended up sacrificing both as people got handed seats because of their connections rather than because they had anything about them, and the lack of opportunities for non-Blairites led to a shrinking and stagnating centre-left/left. The current ascendent faction isn't capable of creating something as progressive as the 1997 manifesto and most of them wouldn't touch anything approaching it with a barge pole unless pushed, just as Blair and his ilk wouldn't have if they hadn't had to as part of the factional horse-trading of the 90s. The closest thing to a 1997-style offering Labour could offer now would have looked very much like what Starmer got elected to deliver in 2020 - a progressive policy platform based on the popular policies of the 2017 manifesto wrapped up and delivered in a professional package. What Starmer is actually delivering is a re-hash of what Milliband offered in 2015 - a bland idea-free mulch permeated by watered down Tory rhetoric, delivered by a group of people the public fundamentally don't like or trust.
That depends on the reason for nationalisation doesn't it.
But anyway. You have your views and I have mine.
Left wing parties don't get elected for the reasons I have mentioned.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-59479149
This makes the 2nd black Labour Councillor to quit in the last week citing racism from within the Party.
Between this and the lack of further investigation into Islamophobia within the party, it's clear that there's a pattern developing and Starmer isn't taking it seriously enough.
This makes the 2nd black Labour Councillor to quit in the last week citing racism from within the Party.
Between this and the lack of further investigation into Islamophobia within the party, it's clear that there's a pattern developing and Starmer isn't taking it seriously enough.
You've sent a link to a single four year old yougov poll, let's not overstate it.
The survey doesn't relate to reality either. The government can let rail license lapse and nationalise that way, but nationalising utilities would cost hundreds of billions unless you want to expropriate them, whacking pension funds etc...If you asked people if they'd fund that, the answer will likely be different.
I've given the date of the link in the original post, hardly an overstatement.
Surely people know what nationalisation means? That the public takes over privately run industry at an initial cost to the public? You might be right but I think people know that there's an associated cost.
56% of people in favour of nationalising energy companies as of today. People can obviously go and search for more information industry by industry if they like. Also, not saying the UK is left wing, only that left wing policies can be or are popular when not presented with bias.
Many right wing policies are also popular and probably more so.
Last edited:
I can't copy the image but it says are these services/industries better nationalised or privatised and lists the police, army etc...It's theoretical, not setting out the difficulties of doing that.
If you asked people if they want totally renewable energy, most will say yes, but if you add that it'll cost add £2-3k to your annual bills far less will be keen.
Hell, I bet some polls will show people want to bring back hanging, ban all immigrants etc...
Do they?
The market cap of the UK Utilities sector alone is £78.3b as of today. https://simplywall.st/markets/gb/utilities
So have people been asked whether it would be wise to borrow £78.3b to pay the shareholders off? Or if we did borrow £78.3b whether they would rather spend it on something else, such as public services or creating good long-term jobs that can compete on the world market? Or if we borrow nothing and take over without compensation whether they understand the effect that would have on future foreign investment and their jobs, or the pound and the increased prices they would have to pay in the shops? Or maybe they would be happy to pay £78.3b more in taxes instead?
People including me will, and have, voted for left-wing policies where they have been sensible and thought-out, but I would need to see some evidence of that from the left''s 'let's nationalise everything' brigade before it gets my vote.
I agree it's theoretical but almost all polling is theoretical. When asked which party you support or which policy you never get assigned a twenty page dissertation for homework and a response sheet to justify your opinion.
Yeah, the army/police/etc., I agree with too and that's why I separated those ones out as to be expected. Though with the alignment of the UK/US economies post-Brexit (NHS) a lot of this stuff is quickly becoming less theoretical or will in the next ten years. Also agree on your last point, right wing pov being equally if not more popular and not necessarily nuanced or "good".
The track and trace app has cost upwards of £40b and has been a shambles. If you put it in those terms, you will of course turn people off but if you compare it to other expenditures and how they are financed, I'm not sure it would be so disagreeable. Of course it would have to be compensated unless you want to gear your economy to an isolationist socialist entity of one. And it wouldn't be about nationalizing all industries but only those which are most "public", which the public logically have the most interest in owning. Transport and energy, aside from the obvious already public-owned, are two sectors that it makes sense to nationalize.
So would I but I'm not in favour of nationaising everything. Should also bear in mind that these industries all make profits.
£40 does give some perspective, thank you. I suppose you could use that to justify any spending though, and whilst it was an utter cock-up, typical of the tories, we will by paying for it for many years to come, almost for nothing, it's not exactly a good thing.
To be picky public transport doesn't make a profit, and never will in the UK, but as a former railwayman I do believe it would have cost a damn site less had it remained in public hands in the first place. I think that one's won.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Oppose for the sake of opposing? That's not working for the best interest in the public and would just be (rightly) accused of playing party politics.
We need a grown up in charge, and we finally have a choice of one.
What exactly did you oppose from the motion that was passed in the Commons?
I'm struggling to think of a single time Keir has offered any serious opposition?
Not only this specific motion.
Sitting quietly as blue Labour is his strategy. Even if he gets into power he will be no different from the current government. Which goes back to the point, if he doesn't oppose, what is the difference?
Centrist Labour is not the same as hard right Tory. It may not be what we actually wish was available, but its not the same.
I do find that modern day centrists like Starmer, Wes Streeting etc, are probably the most vacuous people in British politics, largely repeating empty platitudes and jargon, i.e. 'we will set out a bold new vision', 'we must face the country instead of looking inwards', without clearly defining what they stand for and specific policies. For example a modern day centrist might say something like 'we support business and free enterprise, but also workers' rights', without being able to explain how exactly. A friend of mine summed it up as 'bland centrist nothingness'.
We saw how utterly hopeless Jess Phillip's quickly aborted leadership campaign last year, with her completely out of her depth when it came to setting out what specific policies.
I stress 'modern day', as from what I understand Blair and New Labour were able to set out what they stood for very clearly and concisely through specific policies in the 90s, alongside the managerial jargon. Plus of course Blair unlike Starmer had charisma which has become increasingly important over time, and he completely destroyed the Tories week after week (Major was terrified of him).
We saw how utterly hopeless Jess Phillip's quickly aborted leadership campaign last year, with her completely out of her depth when it came to setting out what specific policies.
I stress 'modern day', as from what I understand Blair and New Labour were able to set out what they stood for very clearly and concisely through specific policies in the 90s, alongside the managerial jargon. Plus of course Blair unlike Starmer had charisma which has become increasingly important over time, and he completely destroyed the Tories week after week (Major was terrified of him).
Policy wise there will be very little difference if he gets in. I can assure you. If he released any actual policies maybe we could compare.
So far many of the approaches from Starmer have not even been centrist but trying to "out right" the right wing.
Starmer is having to deal with public sentiment in a variety of ways, but ultimately even if he wanted wanted a Tory-esque manifesto (which he doesnt) he can't just choose that. Labour is not one man. The idea that Labour in power would be indistinguishable from the Tories is just flat out wrong.
What is Starmer doing about winning back Labour supporters in Scotland? Without a sizeable 'wall' (sporran-wall?) of Labour seats in Scotland, he has no chance of winning in Westminster.
If roughly half the populace in Scotland still want the Union to stand, then surely there is something there for him to go after... they can't all be Tories... can they?
Boris will fend off the SNP demands for INDY2 for at least another five years, maybe even a decade (which also helps him keep his job), so Starmer has some room to operate there, as Sturgeon struggles to keep the flame of Independence going and the rest of her policy package starts to wither on the vine... get in there Keir!
If roughly half the populace in Scotland still want the Union to stand, then surely there is something there for him to go after... they can't all be Tories... can they?
Boris will fend off the SNP demands for INDY2 for at least another five years, maybe even a decade (which also helps him keep his job), so Starmer has some room to operate there, as Sturgeon struggles to keep the flame of Independence going and the rest of her policy package starts to wither on the vine... get in there Keir!
Their leader has no policies the Tories don't bring forward for him to support and has made clear he'll abandon anything he comes up with if it helps him win an election. The one 'win' he's got, without Marcus Rashford doing the leg work for him, is creating a hierarchy of NHS access deserving migrants, so only those who don't work in the healthcare industry are paying National Insurance but don't get access without also paying a surcharge. They collectively proudly held no view on the Tories' appalling CHIS Bill and whipped the vote so they'd sack anyone who did, has someone who doesn't want Labour to represent the out of work as his handpicked Shadow Chancellor and were yesterday complaining about the Online Harms Bill. Not about the authoritarian nature of its proposals, they'd already agreed to support whatever it says months ago, but that it was taking too long to be put to a vote. Topped off by the open goal they had last night in having an opportunity to get some positive changes to statutory sick pay or furlough guarantees in exchange for the votes Johnson needed on COVID passes. Na, feck it, we'll just back it regardless.
Starmer is an authoritarian conman. He's Johnson with combed hair and a knighthood.
It's not a fair comparison though because the reason why Blair was able to focus on a narrow but specific set of policies for 1997 was partly because he had a more unified Labour Party and more importantly he was able to keep on top of his messaging.
He had a level of charisma sure but he also no social media which is a new beast to handle. Social media is very skewed towards the loudest voices but the media disproportionally give it a lot of importance. The ripple effect is it splits people into categories and poses questions on subjects Tony Blair was never subject to.
Had a big chance to prove Keir's strategy of out-torying the Tories would work in North Shropshire. But no, another massive decline in vote numbers for Labour.
If he ever does manage to win it will be by default as the Tories slice their own guts open on the altar of corruption, not because Starmer has anything to say. And it will be a coalition of some description as like someone said above he's not doing much to win back Scotland or the Red Wall seats, and the Lib Dems are now deemed the "safe pair of hands" (for some reason) in the Tory seats. It is spectacular how deluded the Labour right wingers are about almost everything really.
He's just a nothing entity. I normally always vote Labour but can't bring myself too with this guy. Luckily Lib Dem is pretty well supported in my area so hopefully the tactical vote is to swing to them.
I also could not bring myself to vote for him. The breaking of leadership pledges will only be the start of his deception.
Greens more appealing for me now.
Yes, I've been advised its all 'tactical'; apparently showing that you are losing votes against a government in 'slap-stick' mode, is a way to show you are fit to govern... beats me!
I'll vote for Starmer but he's really the type of bloke you want in the cabinet, not as the leader. I'd say competent but lacking in vision and charisma.
I think what we have seen is that, as many said at the time and were criticised, the last election really was the "Brexit election". It caused so many problems for Labour and created an open-goal perfectly suited to Boris's waffle and bluster.
I think without that and with Boris's popularity declining, there's hope still.
I think what we have seen is that, as many said at the time and were criticised, the last election really was the "Brexit election". It caused so many problems for Labour and created an open-goal perfectly suited to Boris's waffle and bluster.
I think without that and with Boris's popularity declining, there's hope still.
That is pretty much my view as well.
Despite lots of criticism, I think that his strategy has been successful. He is increasingly been seen as a safe pair of hands.
But if he's competent does that mean he's intended to sabotage his party all along? After all this is the guy that drove the Labour party to their incredibly unpopular Brexit policy at the last election amongst many other own goals. It's surely either lack of competence or complete bastardery isn't it?
Sporran wall? To replace the phrase "red wall"?
You couldn't think of a single Scottish colour to use? Why not just call it haggis wall, or caber toss wall?
You know what you could've used? Tartan wall! Or fecking, wait is tartan a colour? Shite.
feck it, Sporran Wall it is.
Buckfast wall
I honestly think Brexit was a complete hospital pass for Labour. The Conservatives were able to present themselves as the Brexit Party without fear of repercussion and in doing so, take UKIP votes and votes from Brexit-supporting Labour voters.
What could Labour do? At least half its membership and MPs supported Remain, eitber way they were going to alienate a good chunk of their support.
My personal view is that whatever Labour had done they would have gotten a thumping
Absolutely.
Don't agree sorry. Corbyn should simply have done what Wilson did in '75, recognised the party was split, and allowed his MPs a free vote on EU matters. But as McDonnell and Corbyn were lifelong Brexiters they didn't want that, they wanted Brexit. They even tried to stifle debate on a second referendum in the Labour conference. I do think that with different Labour leadership Brexit might have been avoided, not for certain but there would have been a chance.
But no, according to some people here Corbyn wasn't a Brexiter and nothing was his fault even though he was leader, the blame is all Starmer's. To be fair Starmer was at blame for remaining in Corbyn's cabinet, that seems cowardly to me, but most politicians want as much power as they can get I suppose.
And yet his policy became "sit on the fence" as soon as he became leader. So you could argue he's either tried to learn a lesson from a terrible policy he pushed for, or you could argue he knew it was a bad move at the time and was quite happy to tank his party at the election. I don't disagree that there were no good options for Labour but the policy they had to pursue was clearly the worst choice they could have made.