Has it changed much since two days ago when Starmer was still pretending the policy was going ahead?
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
We’ve got a by election next week because Chris Skidmore resigned. The Labour campaigner that knocked on my door I pressed fairly hard because I’m horrified with the direction Labour is moving. She claimed that how Labour campaign and how Labour will govern is two different things and she’s been involved in meetings at the heart of Labour and they’re still working closely, albeit quietly with Unions.
I’ll believe it when I see it, it sounds like a line to sate progressives and actions speak louder than words and both their actions and their public words are doing nothing but shift the Overton window right at the moment.
I think the tactic is to cut the Tories off the centre ground to soak up moderate vote, and cause division in the Tories and pushing them further right making them even less electable.
After being principled and getting nowhere close to winning outside of when the Tories told their core voters that they wanted to steal their children's inheritance I can see why they have adopted the stance.
Obviously the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so we'll (hopefully) see how they govern and hopefully see attempts to win the argument on why centre left politics are to the benefit of everyone.
I reckon 90% of Tory Mp's would take the chance to definitely be Prime minister for 6 months rather than be leader of the opposition for 5 years.
There's a feeling amongst some of them that she'd limit the scale of the defeat, and I sort of think they might be right. The only hope that the Tories have now is to win back disenchanted ex tory voters and I think Mordaunt would be more likely to do that.
That might be a reasonable argument if they'd have adjusted all their policies together off the back of an OBR/treasury modelling
As it is they seemingly do it with no clear rationale and it's impossible to know week to week which policies they'll drop. Truly can anyone say what the priority is of this Labour leadership? They claim a key priority one week and then drop it the next.
And that's a completely fair, rational argument (which for what it's worth I completely agree with).
My only issue is that, the country is so broken, that committing so much to any single cause is going to draw so much heat away from others (even though it's probably the only way to actually go about it). When you think about the 'main' issues, and this is just off the top of my head:
- CPS backlog, lacking numbers of lawyers & judges, courthouses etc in a state of decay
- Prisons at a horrific point of overcrowding, more needing to be built, and many in a state of decay
- Police, staffing & wages, dealing with institutional issues
- Schooling, staffing and wages, outdated education practices, buildings falling apart, CAMHS backlogs and SEN provisions lacking in so many area
- NHS, where to f*cking start
- Dentistry, see above, people literally pulling out their teeth
- Benefits
- Infrastructure, roads in disrepair, housing targets, social housing etc
Their priority is not to spook the markets and cost the country £50 billion like Lizz Truss. Then do what they can afford to do.
I know its crazy.
I know its crazy.
Did she not realise this means she is saying the party is lying to the public in order to win votes ?
Oh you don’t agree with Starmer well don’t worry he is actually just lying all the time! I guess the lack of policy means this is the only “argument” they’ve got but it seems very strange to brag about to voters.
A political party which would completely change policy when in power would be pretty bad for any democracy regardless of their politics.
We live in a strange world where both insane media like GB news and labour campaigners agree there is a socialist conspiracy to take over the British government by stealth.
Why is he smirking when talking about a serious matter? I really despise this cnut.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I would agree with most of the above, however, the highlighted bit though I think is almost always true, and it's a mistake that Cameron failed to avoid. Having recently won a GE, seen off the SNP on independence, he was 'cock-a-hoop' and going for the treble, mainly to see off his 'bother-boys' in the Tory party who had always wanted out. What he failed to see was that whilst there was one clear reason for voting remain, there were umpteen reasons, real and imagined for voting to leave, and that's what did for him... and for staying in the EU. With 52% believing that leaving the EU would solve 'their' particular grumble.
Que Sera, Sera!
Last edited:
Mass civil disobedience.
Personally I believe we're at the point now where maintaining the status quo and continuing with the political system we have is only going to further increase inequality and exacerbate the issues we're facing.
Things aren't going to get better under neo liberalism and still believing that Starmer getting into power will make any sort of difference is genuinely mind boggling. Even worse is people somehow acting like he's the only option we have to bring about meaningful change.
Except he only won the GE based on this, because of his fear about UKIP and those to the further right of his own Party.
And I'm sorry, but 'Que Sera, Sera!' - what?!?!? How about you go to the people who's small / medium sized businesses have gone under because of the friction & costs of trading with our neighbours now. Tell that to the students who potentially we're planning or hoping to use ERASMUS or similar schemes to study abroad without friction. Or how about the touring musicians (not the Elton Johns of this world) who now face the expense of needing paperwork for every single country they tour in for their equipment? Or anyone in the NHS waiting lists as thousands of NHS staff who didn't have or couldn't afford to apply for settled status left to 'go back home', or the same for dentists and teachers? How about those who had the right to study here taken away from them, or had the cost of doing so multiply exponentially!
Que se-fecking-ra!
Yeah, it's perfectly affordable to let the school and hospital system fall into rack and ruin. No bill to foot there. This is a continuous refrain made by those that find it easier to add up columns on a sheet of paper than attend to the less exact matter of fixing the crumbling columns holding up the room they're sitting in.
It is strange that out of an election campaign the BBC are doing a live feed on this green policy for labour. What are the Tory's doing, they actually have power, yet there is nothing on them at all. It's bizarre.
Also it looks like the EU are backing down to the farm protests and binning/ delaying their environmental targets.
Blah blah blah says a man in a dream world. We can't pretend away the reality that we have to borrow the money to run things as they are and those lending that money will stop doing so if you don't cost your plans.
You are just the other side of the coin of Liz Truss special thinking.
What's the goal here? Genuine question.
Let's say Starmer wins and comes in and implements his Tory lite policies. What happens then? He's already telling us not to expect anything will get better because there's no money, so at best we have to assume things in this country are going to stay at the same shitty level for another five years.
But what happens after that? We've already seen austerity doesn't work or actually improve an economy. So what happens after five years of Labour austerity? The economy is still going to be trash so where then is the money going to come from to improve things? Do you think that this time austerity will work because it's happening under Labour?
The Tories get reelected and show Labour how to run a country properly.
Who said Labour shouldn't cost their plans?
Is that really your assumption because someone said maybe don't let schools and hospitals crumble?
The Tories have pushed up the national debt by £1.3 trillion in 14 years. And made the country fall apart.
It’s worth reminding everyone @Don't Kill Bill thinks climate change is like going to your local GP
It’s just a waste of time to even attempt to debate this level on nonsense.
Cause he’s very uncomfortable and the last place he wants to be is in front of a camera.
Who said anything about not costing plans? By all means let's have some costed plans!! Your type would rather build a straw man than a school. Instead of a costed program of investment you'd just rather a managed decline. Maybe because it's slightly easier to write down on a ledger.
Yeah but the deficit… or something.
We just had a load of coated plans Labour scrapped. Because this leadership give the impression of not understanding basic economics.
Read my post above. Don't spook the market. If Labour does then we will be just as fecked as we were by Truss' budget.
How does Starmer help anyone or any of the issues you want addressing if we push the limit on borrowing any further because what scares me is how quickly people forget just how bad that was.
Look at the debt level and interest payments and explain to me how you are going to raise tax levels high enough to afford a wish list of spending commitments?
Over time, with great difficulty and still loads of hardship to come for most people, Labour can turn this around by doing the right things. There isn't any short cut and more borrowing for growth only works if you are not already massively in debt to the limit the markets will allow. Which we pretty much are right now.
Its depressing but sometimes the truth is depressing. Hiding from it doesn't help, and you better believe that things can and will get much worse if we try.
Out of context and wrong as usual. I was addressing why a good idea you could afford before might not be a good idea if you find out you are billions and billions of pounds further in debt.
Never let the facts change your mind though do you Sweet and when you can't answer the point attack the poster that is great form too. Well done very consistent.
Yeah but Gordon Brown sold all our gold
I think you just genuinely don’t understand climate change. It’s not something you can put off to the side and deal with later. In fact the longer it takes to even attempt to deal with climate change the more costly it will be.
We’ve just had the hottest January ever observed. We are going to need mass global coordination and at least some “radical” reforms. Anything less than this is climate denialism because and this might be a shock to some.……the climate doesn’t care about the markets.
So you think that moving towards a green economy is a... wishlist.
At some point, it is going to have to be done. And investing in a green economy is going to give some return on investment. Obviously I can't put a figure on that. But the quicker we move the quicker the return.
A couple of examples.
Who is the world leader in solar panel production.
Who is the world leader in EV battery production.
China.
We’re a totally normal country.
Got the message then!
Don't forget Cameron is now back in Government... and he wasn't voted in by anyone, except Sunak
I'm glad they discovered they had money for this, given all the things we apparently cannot afford. Who needs free school meals when your kids can be fed with this instead?
Dude, stop being so cynical. This is to counter the possibility that when the school concrete crumbles and falls on our kids head, they might start empathising with Palestinians.
Starmer to scale back home insulation scheme as part of green policy U-turn
Exclusive: Labour insiders say scheme singled out for attack by Tories this week will be major victim of U-turn over £28bn plans
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ulation-scheme-as-part-of-green-policy-u-turn
Exclusive: Labour insiders say scheme singled out for attack by Tories this week will be major victim of U-turn over £28bn plans
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ulation-scheme-as-part-of-green-policy-u-turn
He's such a fecking tool. Yes it was legitimate to point out U-Turns, but not needed to point out the trans issue
Why is he not being questioned on that part of his answer
I can never figure out why any amount was stipulated by the Labour Party that far out from the GE. Surely the thing to say was "that we will borrow for spending on a Green economy, how much will depend on conditions at the time".
Suspect Starmer is trying to foresee which 'big sticks' the Tories will use to come after him with at the GE and shorten them, or otherwise neutralise them as much as he can.
Perhaps it was Ms Reeves learning on-the-job, or as it appears, Sir Keir is accepting 'collective responsibility.'.. it is the right thing to do at this juncture.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It could be politicking before the election, Yes.
We don't know what information/predictions he is being given as to the state of finances though. My concern isn't that he has suddenly changed his mind on climate change, as that seems far fetched to me, the bigger worry is that he knows we just don't have and can't raise the money to do it. Could be he wants to commit to another big promise (lets say on housing for example) and knows it won't be credible with this money assigned to the green deal.
Guess work at the moment.