Starmer apparently told close allies he's stepping down.
Westminster Politics 2024-2029
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
-
In the latest edition of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) chats to author, Dan Williamson, about his new book 'If I Hadnt Seen Such Riches' which chronicles our 1990/91 European Cup Winners Cup victory, which is a trip down memory lane for those old enough to remember it and a vital history lesson for those who don't.
Can’t believe it would be now.
Can't believe he has any close allies left.
I dont think the grand plan is likely to happen now, but if Andy gets in then he won't try looking down the back of the settee for funds, he will go straight for the money tree in your back garden...forget the plan, there's a new King in Town, down from the North.
Why bother to work, why bother to take the risk to start or maintain a small business? That’s the problem. But not one socialists ever consider, or stick around long enough to see the repercussions.
Looking forward to a lurch further to the left…
I'm a socialist that owns a small business, so I don't think that blanket statement is true at all. I can't be the only one.
Clearly it’s not binary, and 2 line post lack nuance, but Labour do not support business and make it more difficult to survive.
The people employed, in small businesses, do you think you should give them shares in that business? Otherwise I think to myself, why bother work, indeed, when it's the work of those people, if you employ any, of course, which constitutes the wealth of that business and they, other than wage-slavery, do not participate in that wealth at all.
That's one pro-capitalists never can answer because it's a genuinely degenerate feature of the system (exploitation). As if you can hear capitalism saying, "Yes, start a small business, and exploit the wage-labour of these people, and demonstrate that they too can do it -- however, do not mention that the system, capitalism, necessitates that they, statistically, cannot, at all, do this, otherwise the system would not 'work'".
Just some thoughts. Oh, and as per, this is to Buster?, the magic money tree -- wasn't it the Tories who spun that line during the 2019 election and then found out that they indeed had such a money tree but pissed it all up against a wall.
Wage slavery. That’s a new one. Why are they exploiting their employees? You often see businesses with share schemes, so I don’t see your point.
We should be encouraging those people to take risk, and start their own businesses - government supporting them to do so. Not killing aspiration.
It’s the risk factor that should be rewarded.
I’m sure my dad called me buster when I was a child. Interesting.
One of the problems people have is that they continue to blame parties no longer in power. “That lot were bad, so it’s ok for us to be as well”
Like any party, there was an awful lot wrong with the last Tory government, and I for one wanted a change. I didn’t want what we have got - ok little monster.
Fundamentally I disagree with governments looking at small business and the middle classes to fill the revenue gap due to their own incompetence. Yes started by the Tories, and now even worse.
But for some people, they have a different perspective.
Basically ancient at this point in concept: Lincoln used the term, or his party did, if i recall correctly and economists of certain types use it all the time. It's accurate, because that's basically what it is.
Should everyone start their own businesses, there would be no people to work in said businesses and create the wealth which, generally, only the shareholding class participates in qua concentration of capital/wealth. It's one of those statistical lies.
New in the sense of being levies at small business.
Of course a great deal of people are incapable of starting their own business, the suggestion is not that all people should. But those who have the ideas, the graft, and are willing to take on risk (getting more and more considerable) should be encouraged and helped prosper.
Many of the businesses are not creating a great deal of wealth, far from it, but they are creating jobs, and helping our economy. But, the reaction is instead that they are creating slaves and exploiting people.
These are your post offices, your flower shops, your mechanics, your food stalls, your micro breweries etc. etc.
Don't get me wrong, I am far from aiming at the small/medium businesses, the critique I put above is more about transnational corporations and the larger ones which absolutely do exploit the shit out of people in so many ways.
I just think in years to come, maybe a few generations away, working without a share in the enterprise you work in (or other accommodation) will seem "Dickensian" in the same way child-labor seems that way to us now.
No, I would like to think that most people would agree with this (possibly stating 'working people' instead of 'middle classes').
But I think this statement above touches on an issue which all governments struggle, and which is caused by the globalised nature of finance that previous PMs like Thatcher did not have to deal with in the same way.
Money is mobile beyond national borders in a way we have not seen before.
Therefore the only sure source of income through taxation for governments are people and businesses who do not have enough wealth or income to be able to be mobile and leave the jurisdiction.
It is structurally unfair.
I’m open to explore that. I suppose my two big questions would how does this affect the public sector - in respect of such rewards?
Secondly, I think that movement of labour is important especially for social mobility - and if employers were compelled to offer a share of enterprise, then it would discourage such movement, and in a similar way to many silos in the public sector prevent good people moving in and out of roles, and decrease quite significantly opportunity.
Of course, all theoretical.
Consider this
One model/method of a different kind of set-up which gives workers equity within the enterprise.
Dominic Caddick, economist at the New Economics Foundation (NEF), argues that borrowing costs will stay high regardless of who leads the Labour party.
[‘Pension market shifts’ refers to the shrinking market for defined benefit pensions, which had been a major purchases of long-term gilts such as 30-year bonds in the past]
He says whichever leader can't influence oil prices, but can intervene on inflation through an energy guarantee. That could help reduce inflation, but probably only at the margins. It would cost a fortune too, putting further strain on the government's finances, particularly if oil prices remain elevated for some time, as many expect.
Highly questionable whether that would boost demand though, given the economy is weak and cost of living issues like higher food prices for consumers and input costs for businesses wouldn't be reduced by the intervention. Add in high tax rates as well, which are curbing hiring and wage growth, pointing to sluggish growth.
The 30 year bonds are only a fraction of the goverment's funding. The vast majority is sub-15 years, so it's misleading to extrapolate overall funding costs from ultra long dated bonds.
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was
It's a strong tactic. Change nothing and just hope for the best. Genius.
If only someone else had tried that after the 14 years of Tory failure... oh wait.
Then stay in Manchester. If you are not going to change anything we may as well stay with the status quo.
It'll work any day now.
Genuinely think this will backfire and Reform or Green will just nab the seat. Would be quite funny if it was not such an awful outcome.
Its a popular tactic with the media and interests. Thats why he's being hyped the last 2 years. They'd hype Streeting but no one could sell that guy.
He'll throw a few bones to the left of the party or just plain old lie and it'll be business as usual. On the bright side labour together probably wont sabotage him too much
Let’s see if it pays off for him Cotton.
People should check out Burham interview with ITV news. Really is just Starmer with a northern accent.
What did you expect?
Burnham will have to tred the same 'tight rope' as Starmer, he may be more 'saleable' to the public; but two comments already about keeping fiscal rules and rejoining the EU ( sometime in the future) are typical of the issues he will have to face.
It should not surprise anyone that even before the bye election result is known many in the Labour party will be experiencing ,'buyer remorse' over this 'panic' move.
The only parties who can benefit are Reform and/or the Tories; neither can believe their luck.
Idk, Conservatives were gonna win in Canada until the liberals switched candidates.
Based on mostly vibes I don't think he will win the seat. Too many in the Green party seem out for payback for him joining in on the attacks and if he doesn't position himself against Starmer's gang of rancid gammons then how will he energise the base of support. Starmer just got the kicking off his life, you can't win those people back with a more of the same message.
Wouldn't bet on that. They already have by giving him the Makerfield hospital pass.
I think Burnham will win the seat but it will be close, like many seats will be at the next general election.
Greens will take some votes from Labour (they currently put forward a more coherent/powerful/enticing message). Reform will do well, but they will also lose some votes to Restore. I'm not sure how popular Restore are outside of Twitter, but even if they take two thousand votes it could be decisive. Lib Dems and Tories don't have a strong record in Makerfield, but in other constituencies they do. The next election is going to be unlike anything we've seen before. Six parties, not including parties in Wales/Scotland/NI, who will influence the overall result, plus numerous independents in certain seats. Tactics will play a part in this election, but surely the first past the post system won't last much longer.
Greens will take some votes from Labour (they currently put forward a more coherent/powerful/enticing message). Reform will do well, but they will also lose some votes to Restore. I'm not sure how popular Restore are outside of Twitter, but even if they take two thousand votes it could be decisive. Lib Dems and Tories don't have a strong record in Makerfield, but in other constituencies they do. The next election is going to be unlike anything we've seen before. Six parties, not including parties in Wales/Scotland/NI, who will influence the overall result, plus numerous independents in certain seats. Tactics will play a part in this election, but surely the first past the post system won't last much longer.
I did wonder was that intentional. Give him a run at the hardest seat they can find. Get reform / the greens to take the competition out for them.
You all do understand he's said this to calm the markets right? Treasury yields were on the rise.
Funnily enough the financial markets would factor in every element of news, including a probability of him winning his seat. If they are reacting to his sentiment it's telling you something. He's also very smart to tail back the narrative until he's in the seat.
Wouldn't say it's the hardest seat they can find, it's perhaps worse than that. It's one he's very likely not to win which would take him out, but it's one which he plausibly could/should win so then he owes them a favour. And the guy resigning needed to go anyway so they've lost very little.
I can understand the cynicism after the Labour Together nonsense.
I think we all remember Starmer was supposed to suddenly become a centre left PM instead of paraphrasing Enoch Powell.
Indeed. I suppose Burnham and his team would know better than me what will sell to the voters of Makerfield but tbh I'd be a bit surprised if it was "Fiscal rules". So if he's saying it to calm markets / Labour Together then I don't know how much hope I would have of that becoming different the moment he enters Downing Street. On the other hand what will sell to the people of Makerfield probably also isn't "rejoin the EU", no matter how well that might go down in the Labour party as a whole. It's a fine line to tread and let's hope he's good at it and not a complete knob at the end of it all like Starmer.
I understand but there has to be a line, at least for reasonable debates here. We are getting riled up from throwaway tweets without bothering to look at the why.
The economics of it all is vital, and you it's generally not great to spook the shit out of markets before you've even won a seat as MP.
You genuinely think he’d say something that harms his ability to win a seat which is essentially make or break for his life’s goal ‘to calm the markets’?
You genuinely think he's not aware of the chances of winning? I think the seat is more than likely his. I don't think itl be that close as people say it is, but this is also based on the markets pricing everything in and being sensitive to his words accordingly.
Does Burnham have to give up his Mayoral role, before the bye election starts; or only if he wins the seat?
If it's the latter, then should he fail, he just toddles off back to being Mayor.
He is risking nothing if that's the case...not a good look for a 'swash- buckling' would be PM
