Keir Starmer Labour Leader

[Reiver]

What was so wrong with New Labour (not just Tony Blair).
Three election victories on the bounce. Record investment in public services. Hospital waiting times at a record low. Schools modernised. The economy booming.
No government since has got even close to their achievements.

I certainly wouldn't claim they didn't do some good.
But, they essentially relied on the economy and economic growth to create a more equal society, which boils down to neoliberalism and Thatcherism. The sight of Labour leaders fawning over that woman on a Downing Street visit is something I'll never forget.
So, for me, New Labour abandoned the founding principles of the party. Many may feel that isn't a bad thing, even a good thing. For me, those founding principles are what makes the party - or made it anyway - and shouldn't be forgotten. I'm not necessarily talking about Clause IV, more so the principle of the redistribution of wealth.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

For the first time since Blair was elected I’d now consider voting for labour again. Corbynism is just populism based on envy, in the end everyone would be worse off.

Envy. Ha ha! Very funny.

Most economies and policies in Europe must also be based on envy too then, by your logic?

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

I certainly wouldn't claim they didn't do some good.
But, they essentially relied on the economy and economic growth to create a more equal society, which boils down to neoliberalism and Thatcherism. The sight of Labour leaders fawning over that woman on a Downing Street visit is something I'll never forget.
So, for me, New Labour abandoned the founding principles of the party. Many may feel that isn't a bad thing, even a good thing. For me, those founding principles are what makes the party - or made it anyway - and shouldn't be forgotten. I'm not necessarily talking about Clause IV, more so the principle of the redistribution of wealth.

Labour will never get in power again if they stick to the left, and these outdated ideas. New Labour was a party for the aspirational.

 

[Reiver]

Labour will never get in power again if they stick to the left, and these outdated ideas. New Labour was a party for the aspirational.

Yes they were...just like the Tory party.

 

[Prodigal7]

Envy. Ha ha! Very funny.

Most economies and policies in Europe must also be based on envy too then, by your logic?

Yes. France especially are some of the most envy driven and entitled people on the planet. Whilst America is very right wing, Europe tend to be very left wing. I like to think we’re the sensible and pragmatic ones in the middle.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Yes. France especially are some of the most envy driven and entitled people on the planet. Whilst America is very right wing, Europe tend to be very left wing. I like to think we’re the sensible and pragmatic ones in the middle.

Classic. So you don't like the French and they, for you, represent "most European countries".

What about Sweden or Norway?

Great to hear that you, Jeremy Clarkson, might vote Labour under Starmer, by the way. Ha!

 

[Prodigal7]

Classic. So you don't like the French and they, for you, represent "most European countries".

What about Sweden or Norway?

Great to hear that you, Jeremy Clarkson, might vote Labour under Starmer, by the way. Ha!

Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Germany, Austria and probably a few others are sensible people running sustainable economies and societies.

 

[Sweet Square]

Corbynism is just populism based on envy, in the end everyone would be worse off.

Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Germany, Austria and probably a few others are sensible people running sustainable economies and societies.

According to data collected by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, France, Italy, Sweden, Greece and Germany all dedicate more of their GDP to public spending on social goods than the UK at rates of between 25 and 31%. This includes investment in health, old age, incapacity-related benefits, family, work programmes, unemployment and housing.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...into-line-with-france-and-germany-says-corbyn

D'oh!

 

[Prodigal7]

D'oh!

You want us to be more like Greece and Italy? Do you any idea how much pain their borrowing and overspending harms their citizens in terms of living standards? France will be there soon.

as for Germany and Sweden, Germany balances its books every year due to there brilliant export economy so they can afford to spend as much on social goods. I don’t know the detail behind Sweden’s finances but their economy and society seems in good shape so I imagine they have the tax income to manage that spending sustainably.

the way you’ve just snippetEd out public spending as a % of GDP to try and make a point (not even sure what point you’re definitively trying to make, or whether you understand the point you’re trying to make) shows how dumb left and right political discourse has become. It’s about building a sustainable economy that’s fair for everyone, based on meritocracy. You can’t keep spending more than you make, it’s really not complicated.

 

[Sweet Square]

the way you’ve just snippetEd out public spending as a % of GDP to try and make a point (not even sure what point you’re definitively trying to make, or whether you understand the point you’re trying to make)

It was to point out that Labour plans weren't radical but just upgrading the British economy to a similar standards to countries you admire. Yes the germans have a economy built on exports(which screw a over the rest of Europe)but they have also have a strong social safety net and powerful unions(Again another thing Labour was proposing)And even then there's growing inequality in Germany.

You want us to be more like Greece and Italy? Do you any idea how much pain their borrowing and overspending harms their citizens in terms of living standards? France will be there soon.

It’s about building a sustainable economy that’s fair for everyone, based on meritocracy. You can’t keep spending more than you make, it’s really not complicated.

Didn't know we had a celebrity on the cafe!


I must of posted this video a good 20 times on here.

 

[Sweet Square]

I honestly hope Starmer tailored suit and knighthood is all it takes to win over the reactionary Tory vote.

 

[esmufc07]

Would be interested to see a thread on New Labour’s legacy and what people think. I’ve always thought they generally did a good job with record levels of investment but it’s surprising to me how right wing they were on some issues such as immigration/asylum seekers. Thatcher herself said New Labour was her greatest legacy.

That said any Labour government is better than a conservative one.The last 10 years have torn this country in two and I do worry and despair in the direction this country is headed, to the point i am seriously thinking of emigrating at some point.

Whether the causes of Brexit and all the political turmoil of the last few years have its roots in the New Labour period I suppose is a discussion for more knowledgeable people than I.

 

[Sweet Square]

Would be interested to see a thread on New Labour’s legacy and what people think. I’ve always thought they generally did a good job with record levels of investment but it’s surprising to me how right wing they were on some issues such as immigration/asylum seekers. Thatcher herself said New Labour was her greatest legacy.

Very authoritarian as well with things like ASBO's and wanting to push for ID cards. For me Blair was far more a social conservative than a liberal.


Anyways it would be interesting thread.

 

[nickm]

Very authoritarian as well with things like ASBO's and wanting to push for ID cards. For me Blair was far more a social conservative than a liberal.


Anyways it would be interesting thread.

I agree with you on that, I think it contributed to much of the fatigue with the labour govt.

 

[nickm]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Just don't think it matters just yet, I'll take basic competence for now. But clearly we will need something.

 

[RedChip]

Just don't think it matters just yet, I'll take basic competence for now. But clearly we will need something.

I think so too. I imagine Starmer does know he needs a vision. In fact, I wonder sometimes if it is better not to be that explicit about a vision until you have won the election. I am not really sold on the idea of leading the debate, plus giving the right wing press anything they can feed off isn't all that helpful. The debate only matters among the politically engaged, which most of the public are not.

 

[Buster15]

I certainly wouldn't claim they didn't do some good.
But, they essentially relied on the economy and economic growth to create a more equal society, which boils down to neoliberalism and Thatcherism. The sight of Labour leaders fawning over that woman on a Downing Street visit is something I'll never forget.
So, for me, New Labour abandoned the founding principles of the party. Many may feel that isn't a bad thing, even a good thing. For me, those founding principles are what makes the party - or made it anyway - and shouldn't be forgotten. I'm not necessarily talking about Clause IV, more so the principle of the redistribution of wealth.

While I agree with some of that, new labour knew that in order to connect with the public, which they certainly did, they needed to modernise and move with the times. Any government of any country has to first of all get a stable and growing economy. And I would argue that new labour did redistribute wealth by improving public services to a great extent.
It is fine having principles. But that is useless unless you can get elected.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

While I agree with some of that, new labour knew that in order to connect with the public, which they certainly did, they needed to modernise and move with the times. Any government of any country has to first of all get a stable and growing economy. And I would argue that new labour did redistribute wealth by improving public services to a great extent.
It is fine having principles. But that is useless unless you can get elected.

This is what I find most interesting/ frustrating about a large proportion of Labour. They would far rather be a protest group, with backward thinking and outdated ideas - than to actually appeal to the middle ground and the aspirational to try and have a credible chance of winning an election.

 

[Smores]

This is what I find most interesting/ frustrating about a large proportion of Labour. They would far rather be a protest group, with backward thinking and outdated ideas - than to actually appeal to the middle ground and the aspirational to try and have a credible chance of winning an election.

Christ it's like you've plucked all the cliches out to make this enlightened point

You probably need to back up this scramble of words with some substance.

 

[Untied]

What was so wrong with New Labour (not just Tony Blair).
Three election victories on the bounce. Record investment in public services. Hospital waiting times at a record low. Schools modernised. The economy booming.
No government since has got even close to their achievements.

Relevant New Labour years highlighted.

 

[Buster15]

This is what I find most interesting/ frustrating about a large proportion of Labour. They would far rather be a protest group, with backward thinking and outdated ideas - than to actually appeal to the middle ground and the aspirational to try and have a credible chance of winning an election.

Absolutely correct.

 

[Prodigal7]

It was to point out that Labour plans weren't radical but just upgrading the British economy to a similar standards to countries you admire. Yes the germans have a economy built on exports(which screw a over the rest of Europe)but they have also have a strong social safety net and powerful unions(Again another thing Labour was proposing)And even then there's growing inequality in Germany.


Didn't know we had a celebrity on the cafe!


I must of posted this video a good 20 times on here.

Well as I explained that’s a complete misunderstanding of the situation then. Look up Schwartze null that the Germans practice, it’s the opposite of what you’re suggesting they do. Spending needs to be measured against income and sustainable income growth not against a countries overall dispersed wealth.

as for that video, the Greek finance minister is the last person anyone should take economic advise on. They’re a border line third world country now after their uncontrolled public spending and corruption. Though it’s true that spending can stimulate growth, if you rely on public spending to grow your economy sooner or later you will end up like Greece, Italy etc where the debt continues to build and the ticking time bomb expires.
The left under Corbyn were nothing more than envy driven free loading wannabes that were only interested in taking money from people more successful than themselves. Closet communists.

 

[Sweet Square]

Well as I explained that’s a complete misunderstanding of the situation then. Look up Schwartze null that the Germans practice, it’s the opposite of what you’re suggesting they do. Spending needs to be measured against income and sustainable income growth not against a countries overall dispersed wealth.

https://www.ft.com/content/d89d9404-c586-11e9-a8e9-296ca66511c9

as for that video, the Greek finance minister is the last person anyone should take economic advise on. They’re a border line third world country now after their uncontrolled public spending and corruption. Though it’s true that spending can stimulate growth, if you rely on public spending to grow your economy sooner or later you will end up like Greece, Italy etc where the debt continues to build and the ticking time bomb expires.
The left under Corbyn were nothing more than envy driven free loading wannabes that were only interested in taking money from people more successful than themselves. Closet communists.

Amazing stuff. Thanks!

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Germany, Austria and probably a few others are sensible people running sustainable economies and societies.

Yet most have similar policies to those that you earlier described as being based on envy.

Maybe you should look into that contradiction.

 

[Sweet Square]

When some think the mildest form of social democracy is secret "communism" and the British economy should be run like a household cutting down on takeaways then any sort of debate is pointless tbh.

It seems no amount of pandemics or economic downturns will change this.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

When some think the mildest form of social democracy is secret "communism" and the British economy should be run like a household cutting down on takeaways then any sort of debate is pointless tbh.

Exactly. I see regurgitated sound bites but not much independent thinking from the few social democratic critics in this thread. They've bought the "Communist Corbyn" line and they'll never reassess those actual policies vs successful economies in Europe.

If people believe running a çountries finances is as simple as running personal finances then rational debate is certainly an uphill struggle.

 

[Prodigal7]

Yet most have similar policies to those that you earlier described as being based on envy.

Maybe you should look into that contradiction.

They can afford to hand out generous money and they do that at a sustainable level. Their debt levels are stable. Our benefits systems even under a Tory government is one of the most generous in the world. With the 40% tax bracket the top 5% of earners pay over 50% of the income in this country already so we’ve already got a country that takes a hell of a lot of the wealthy peoples money for redistribution.

The problem for the modern left wing voter is that nothing is ever enough for them. They’re always looking at how much others have, if they have more than themselves, and feel entitled to take from whoever has more than them and warp that belief into some sort of moral principle. There’s a reason that Corbyn was the first candidate in decades that the communist party actively campaigned for.

 

[nimic]

They can afford to hand out generous money and they do that at a sustainable level. Their debt levels are stable. Our benefits systems even under a Tory government is one of the most generous in the world. With the 40% tax bracket the top 5% of earners pay over 50% of the income in this country already so we’ve already got a country that takes a hell of a lot of the wealthy peoples money for redistribution.

The problem for the modern left wing voter is that nothing is ever enough for them. They’re always looking at how much others have, if they have more than themselves, and feel entitled to take from whoever has more than them and warp that belief into some sort of moral principle. There’s a reason that Corbyn was the first candidate in decades that the communist party actively campaigned for.

Ok

 

[Sweet Square]

Exactly. I see regurgitated sound bites but not much independent thinking from the few social democratic critics in this thread. They've bought the "Communist Corbyn" line and they'll never reassess those actual policies vs successful economies in Europe.

If people believe running a çountries finances is as simple as running personal finances then rational debate is certainly an uphill struggle.

Yep there's no winning these types over through policy or discussion, it's just pure reactionary brain sludge and nothing more. Although it's looks like Starmer
sparkly knighthood is at least working on them.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

They can afford to hand out generous money and they do that at a sustainable level. Their debt levels are stable. Our benefits systems even under a Tory government is one of the most generous in the world. With the 40% tax bracket the top 5% of earners pay over 50% of the income in this country already so we’ve already got a country that takes a hell of a lot of the wealthy peoples money for redistribution.

The problem for the modern left wing voter is that nothing is ever enough for them. They’re always looking at how much others have, if they have more than themselves, and feel entitled to take from whoever has more than them and warp that belief into some sort of moral principle. There’s a reason that Corbyn was the first candidate in decades that the communist party actively campaigned for.

So if a country has 60% debt as a percentage of GDP it is not politics of envy? But if its 90% then it is politics of envy?

Your welfare claim is also false, by the way.
https://fullfact.org/immigration/uks-welfare-system-most-generous-europe/

We were on par with Germany on national debt vs GDP in 2010. The Tories have not invested in the country so they are not seeing a return. Its not only about spending its about spending wisely. As one example, if the Tory government had invested wisely, say on social housing then we would spend less on housing benefits and own some real assets as a country.

The richest 1% of people in the UK own more than twenty times the wealth of the poorest 20% in the UK. So they should contribute much more than the 33% of tax income (not 50%) they do currently.

https://fullfact.org/economy/wealth-uk-richest-1-and-poorest-20/

Your last paragraph is just ill informed waffle. As was a good proportion of the first, to be fair.

 

[Prodigal7]

So if a country has 60% debt as a percentage of GDP it is not politics of envy? But if its 90% then it is politics of envy?

Your welfare claim is also false, by the way.
https://fullfact.org/immigration/uks-welfare-system-most-generous-europe/

We were on par with Germany on national debt vs GDP in 2010. The Tories have not invested in the country so they are not seeing a return. Its not only about spending its about spending wisely. As one example, if the Tory government had invested wisely, say on social housing then we would spend less on housing benefits and own some real assets as a country.

The richest 1% of people in the UK own more than twenty times the wealth of the poorest 20% in the UK. So they should contribute much more than the 33% of tax income (not 50%) they do currently.

https://fullfact.org/economy/wealth-uk-richest-1-and-poorest-20/

Your last paragraph is just ill informed waffle. As was a good proportion of the first, to be fair.

I’m not sure what the relevance of your question on debt levels is. Germany’s Export driven economy and economic governance of balancing the books is held up as the model to emulate. The FT are very euro integrationist and want to Germany to spend their money to stimulate the unsustainable and uncompetitive economies in Southern Europe, that’s their constant narrative. Your antipathy towards sustainable economic models is mind boggling, I see no point in retreading my previous posts and you should read them again if your struggling to understand my points.
In fact the EU themselves set a deficit limit of 3% on a budget for all EU countries so balancing the books is vital in their opinion too.

I said our benefits system is one of the most generous in the world which it is. None of that article contradicts what I said. This is typical of a left wing fanatic, not being able to disprove a statement so why not conflate it with something else....

As for the 33% you quote il take your word for it but that’s not what I’ve heard quoted before the pandemic. I’m glad you made that last statement because it really highlights the ideology here. Income inequality anger is purely an envy driven argument.people’s earnings are their own, but for the income tax they pay which at 40% plus is very sizeable. Rich people getting richer has absolutely no bearing on the opportunities for poorer people especially when the tax income from the rich is so vast and can be reinvested in skills training for example. Rather than sit in envy at those earning lots of money, they should be cheered on as people who can fund spending increases with their massive tax contributions which in turn help the poorer in society.

 

[nimic]

Trickle down economics has been proven over and over again not to work. For someone who talks a lot about the other side's ideological bent, your own is quite transparent.

 

[Prodigal7]

Trickle down economics has been proven over and over again not to work. For someone who talks a lot about the other side's ideological bent, your own is quite transparent.

It’s not perfect but it’s been proven to work a lot better than socialism and communism has over the last 50 years.

 

[Reiver]

It’s not perfect but it’s been proven to work a lot better than socialism and communism has over the last 50 years.

Has it? I would question who it has been proven to work for. I'm not saying people from a low socioeconomic background can't succeed in a trickle down economy but the system is designed to largely keep wealth and power with the people it has traditionally rested with. Money may trickle down but it gets the express elevator back up the other way.

 

[Prodigal7]

Has it? I would question who it has been proven to work for. I'm not saying people from a low socioeconomic background can't succeed in a trickle down economy but the system is designed to largely keep wealth and power with the people it has traditionally rested with. Money may trickle down but it gets the express elevator back up the other way.

Absolutely not true. It’s easier to make money when you have money but there’s is every opportunity for those who have the skillset necessary to become rich and successful. Universities and apprenticeship schemes are going out of their way to increase the numbers of underrepresented groups.

 

[Halftrack]

It’s not perfect but it’s been proven to work a lot better than socialism and communism has over the last 50 years.

"It's not perfect" is a hell of an understatement. Since the idea of trickle-down economics surfaced, we've seen a decimation of the middle-class in countries where it's been embraced. More and more money end up at the top, the poor get poorer, but that's okay because at least it isn't communism? Tell me, do you think it's an either-or choice?

 

[Untied]

Writing in The Telegraph today saying how important it is that we get Brexit done asap. I assume all the remainers who voted or considered voting Lib Dem because of Corbyn pursuing a soft-Brexit will be turning away from the Labour Party.

It's curious how the second referendum campaign which employed people who undermined Corbyn in 2017 and was headed by Amber Rudd's brother has completely disappeared now he's no longer Labour leader. Very curious. And before anyone says 2019 changed everything. 1. You could say the same about 2017. By that point we had two democratic results endorisng Brexit, and 2. there's no reason the political energy couldn't have shifted to campaigning for a second referendum on the kind of Brexit deal we pursue. That's what it should have endorsed originally, and would still be viable now if these organisations were sincere.

 

[Dobba]

Clearly Sir Keith secretly voted to leave at the referendum.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

[

Writing in The Telegraph today saying how important it is that we get Brexit done asap. I assume all the remainers who voted or considered voting Lib Dem because of Corbyn pursuing a soft-Brexit will be turning away from the Labour Party.

It's curious how the second referendum campaign which employed people who undermined Corbyn in 2017 and was headed by Amber Rudd's brother has completely disappeared now he's no longer Labour leader. Very curious. And before anyone says 2019 changed everything. 1. You could say the same about 2017. By that point we had two democratic results endorisng Brexit, and 2. there's no reason the political energy couldn't have shifted to campaigning for a second referendum on the kind of Brexit deal we pursue. That's what it should have endorsed originally, and would still be viable now if these organisations were sincere.

I’m sure all politicians who are realistic want Brexit resolved ASAP. What’s the issue with that? The govt have a massive majority.

It’s not something that cannot be stopped, but clearly it can drag on. Everyone realises its better to resolve the negotiations with the EU as soon as practical, even those who voted remain.

 

[esmufc07]

It's curious how the second referendum campaign which employed people who undermined Corbyn in 2017 and was headed by Amber Rudd's brother has completely disappeared now he's no longer Labour leader.

Brexit: UK leaves the European Union
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-51333314