As I said "you are correct".
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
That's a new one on me... is it good or bad?
Don't suppose it will matter when he's leading a substantial majority Labour Government
Well either he's already shot his inconsequential load or there was nothing there to start with. And it really will matter because the country is fecked whether he has a substantial majority of not. 5 years of treading water followed by more Tory bullshit most likely. There's something to look forward to.That's a new one on me... is it good or bad?
Don't suppose it will matter when he's leading a substantial majority Labour Government
How do you come up with that? I take it Starmer would not be your choice for leader of Labour?
I think there are some very proper Labour members of the shadow cabinet, one or two 'iffy' but most of the 'all mouth and trousers brigade" jumped ship at the last election, or have already signalled 'they are only here for the beer' and have been spotted early. So, I am very optimistic.... for the first time in forty years, that we might just get a Labour government which will make a real difference and 'move the dial' significantly.
Mind you, I have been optimistic for years past, in the 70's and 80's, but in the 90,s sort of felt Blair was too photogenic, but then he did get some stuff done on the NHS, but he seemed to have too many friends in high places to get proper movement of the dial, and of course there was Iraq.
We shall have to see, don't give up hope.
There's absolutely no way Starmer will make significant positive impact for the working poor. He's made that very clear already.
Starmer and his Labour party will be perceived as failing the working classes at the end of their term. Making small tweaks to a broken system is not enough.
The sad consequence of a Starmer Labour government will likely be a lurch to the far right by the government which succeeds him
Apparently 30p Lee was offered 400k to join Reform.
No offence Maticmaker, but you don't half ramble sometimes. Historical context should always be appreciated, but the UK is a very different place to how it was in 1980s. Still not sure what you want Starmer to do exactly? You keep saying "new ventures"/"social contracts"/"new schemes" but what does any of this actually entail? What would be the bones of the legisation you hope he would pass?
No offence taken (too Old for that!!).
Yes, I do tend to ramble from time to time, again an age issue. I do appreciate we are not in the 1980's or even in the 20th Century anymore; however I am hoping a new Labour government, with again hopefully a significant majority, finds itself in a position to 'move the dial' towards the kind of legislation that has ongoing effect for decades, and that improves the lot of ordinary working people.
I make reference in a number of posts to how massive an effect the NHS Act and the Education Act had on the ordinary populace. Millions of people post WW2 until the present day have had access to basic human requirements that altered many lives, with Health and Education provision that is effectively free at the point of provision, whereas prior to the WW2 (and certainly WW1) such provision was sparce at best for working families and many had to pay, even for emergency treatment.
I want a Labour government in power (in my lifetime) which can once again 'move the dial' the way they did with Health and Education Acts. For me in the 21st Century this would include ensuring proper jobs with defined pay and conditions and guaranteeing a roof over peoples heads as a minimum*; there other aspects about control of energy and water etc. but those can wait, employment and housing are for me non-negotiable. Given the state the Tories look like leaving us in, it may take two or even three terms in government to get proper/powerful legislation through and then to make sure it works.
I made reference to the ITBs in the 60's and 70's and TECs and YTS in the 80's and 90's because although they were not perfect they had one major element, Employers had to pay levies on jobs and training up front and to get the money back they had to meet the standards set. In future this would be via legislation not by NGO's. For a while these thing worked, but then then big business (mainly Tories) found ways around them and eventually they were scrapped.
It's not going to be easy that's for sure. Blair had a majority, of the size that Starmer would need, but he had made too many promises to certain interests before the election and they only allowed him certain leeway, in particular on NHS; also to keep his 'big tent' idea float he had to compromise with too many members of his own party, who whilst paying lip service, had their own ideas and ambitions, he was distracted of course by Iraq.
Yes, the world has changed and will continue to do so, climate issues apart, migration and energy issues are not going away either. However, for the ordinary folk, a job with a proper rate of pay and somewhere decent to live, are basics, that need to be established like Health and Education (although both of these need re-jigging) with powerful legislation that will stand at least for 50 years is required, a new all powerful Labour government needs to prioritise these basic needs first!
(* I accept other ideas and priorities might come first and are probably easier to accomplish, but employment and housing are for me the 'Holy Grail')
You're still being very woolly about your expectations. Proper jobs with decent conditions and a roof over your head is something everyone, even the Tories, wouldn't argue against (publicly ayway). How you achieve that is a different story. It will require radical changes to our curent M.O. and no one is currently proposing that. The closest we had to that was under Corbyn.
If Kier gets a large majority, you best hope that he can be dragged to the left by his own party in order to do some of what you hope for. Otherwise it will be business as usual, just under new management.
I didn't say it would be easy, essentially it requires the government to legislate. It will take time, its not a quick fix, to formulate plans/consult and negotiate will likely take up the first term. To implement legislation and 'test-bed', a lot of the second term. The third term will see the benefits flowing. To start from scratch would be hard to sell to the public and will need a full commitment from Starmer on what is on offer during the election campaign.
I have pointed to a number of initiatives undertaken via ITBs and TECs in the past, whilst these initially were handled by Industry based organisations (ITB's) and Regional areas TEC's, they lacked specific legislation to back them up so that eventually ways around them were found, by those who 'played the game' it will be up to the Labour government to prevent people playing the game. As I say I am optimistic that Starmer with a large majority has to do something that moves the dial in favour of ordinary working people, this is not left wing (or any other) political ideology, its a means to and end. Its not to be encumbered with 'international socialism' as Corbyn wanted, it is dealing with reality in improving life in general for those who keep the wheels turning in the UK. Aspiration and commitment are essential elements for employers and employees, for land holders and construction companies, Local authorities will need to gather proper information, again not politically biased, to gain an advantage.
Yes its aiming high, but it will never come from the Tories, maybe, just maybe Starmer will at least try?
Rachel Reeves putting the chancer in chancellor, Wes Streeting as health minister, a lot of people I've never heard of... Good that Thornberry, Milliband and Cooper are in there, and Lammy should know what he's doing in the Justice department but remains to be seen what he knows about foreign policy. Hopefully some of the ones we don't know much about can show they're up to the job as they'll need to be. Without any policies or money it won't really matter that much how competent they are though, we can only hope the cowardly non-positions Starmer has taken on almost every policy give way when they take office. I won't hold my breath.
I'm not sure how those initiatives you mentioned are relevant today given the makeup of the UK economy these days, but agree that something needs to be done. Again, Labour are not proposing to do anything different to how things are run now, so any hope that they will make radical or even incremental changes is blind faith.
As for Corbyn, he may be an international socialist in his personal beliefs, but he wasn't standing on the creation of a 5th International or whatever. He was standing on pretty mainstream (outside the US/UK) social democratic policies which would favour working people like you desire. Unfortunately, that is considered a left wing position these days rather than a basic tenet, so Starmer will need to be dragged to that position if he gains power.
Last edited:
Starmer needs to keep his 'powder dry' until the GE starts in earnest, going too soon ruined many previous labour attempts to get elected and last time Corbyn raised a number of issues early that basically most people agreed with, then he got 'suckered in' and started to promise everything, which left him open to the 'sucker punch'.
The Tories believe they are the 'natural party of power', because they know how to play the FPTP system, certainly last time, to perfection... Labour has to outsmart them in such tactics and Starmer is (in my opinion) doing that right now, he's like an 'eel wriggling' and the Tory press don't know how to pin him down. Long may it last.
Those initiatives were right for the time, just they had 'weaknesses' which were exploited. I suggested those as former examples which Labour could learn from in terms of implementation, and to proof test new initiatives so as to identify weakness before launching, to make sure they have no such weaknesses, or that any inherent problems can get sorted down the line, e.g. how employers were drawn in initially needs to be studied, so does the approaches that frightened off many TU's in the first place. Once the Labour government have it buttoned-down they go for it, but it will take time.
Timescales are the worry for me, so much ground has been lost to the 'carpet-baggers' in industry and commerce; the faith of the ordinary public has been devastated, which is why so many 'red wall' areas turned to the Tories. It's a lot to roll back and time is of the essence (isn't it always?)
Actually what you're describing is exactly what all the post election analytical analysis and leaks said caused Milibands downfall. Miliband also pushed back against his advisers and pushed key speeches to shortly before the election, the issue was they'd created such inertia and unclear messaging that the Tories only had to fight and use up a small window. When Labour actually tried to get out their messaging the Tories/media buried it. There's plenty of commentary from key Labour people, plenty still around who bemoaned keeping the powder dry.
Now Starmer is in a different situation given the healthy lead but you can guarantee the same ploys will be used. The Tories come election time will have months of attack pieces planned, dead cat announcements to bury Labour announcements. If Labour let the Tories have the initiative and fail to beat them to policy announcements then the lead will dwindle. It takes months for people to really understand key messaging and you can't do it all at once it has to be topic by topic, it isn't just a case of releasing it for it to be read on the BBC News (where the dead cat pushes it down to the story rankings).
Milliband caused Milliband's downfall.
All the Tories had to do was pushover a man already losing his balance; the treatment of his brother, his 'Stonehenge type promises in stone' whoever recommended he try to ape Moses and the ten commandments, written in stone should have been expelled and banished forever!
Milliband was never going to win a large enough majority to change things/move the dial..... Starmer just might!
"Pongchong"?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
is quite simple what damage the inequality does. There are many arguments. My favourite (all numbers made up) people with more than 10 million will buy a limited number of trousers, being generous 20 a year. While people with very limited resources will buy 2 every 3 years. If you allow that through taxes to get 1 million people the capacity to buy 1 trouser more, you will sell 1 million trousers and the rich segment will keep buying the same. And with that every single aspect of the economy
The funny thing is that I am sure that the rich know that increasing the wealth of the base will make them even wealthier and they would create a society with intangibles that would make them happier, so I don't understand why they adopt this position
I sometimes think about that myself and wonder if they'd rather be slightly less well-off themselves if that meant the gap between them and us peasants would be even bigger.
Yes, but if we all wait long enough it'll trickle down...right?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Sunak is so far out of his depth he makes David Cameron seem a proper leader in comparison
Definitely one of Starmer better put downs.
Yes well it is abundantly clear that Yvette Cooper is many orders of magnitude more intelligent and would make a significantly better Home Secretary than Mr Not So Cleverly. And he is right to be an admirer of her. As am I.
Best thing he's done.
To be fair you can stick anyone in that seat and theyd look like a mug
I watch this, and I'm glad I see Sunak looking like a weak boy. Then I watch it and realise even when he's gone, we're left with a spineless sheep in Starmer. Is this the worst position UK politics has been in? It feels like it.
,in my lifetime that was the day Thatcher was elected, and then reelected
And then reelected again!
What the hell is going on here. How many neutrality/impartiality rules has Hoyle broken by doing this visit.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Last edited:
His dad is a member of the House of Lords. He has also explicitly stated he is against Lords reform. He is a consummate establishment representative, but that is overlooked as he doesn't have a Southern accent.
A devastating loss to campaigners for good austerity across the country, just as they were getting over their favourite war criminal not called Tony Blair shuffling off this mortal coil too.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Been listening to the former Health Secretary Matt Hancock giving his statements to the COVID inquiry.
Slimey git trying to exonerate himself.
Everyone else fault not his and pretending that he is telling the truth.
I don't believe a word of what he is trotting out.
Yesterday, there was a lady on the wireless who was in charge of a Care Home who had received a large number of patients from the NHS.
She said that on the very night Hancock was telling everyone that the Care Homes had all the PPE they needed, she was parked in a layby buying any PPE she could from other Care Homes.
They had set up a WhatsApp group so that each care home could identify what they had and what they needed so as to be able to trade.
And she said that Hancock claimed that he had written advice to all care homes on what they should and should not be doing. Rubbish she said. The only advice they had ever been given by Hancock was to wash their hands singing Happy Birthday.
Slimey git trying to exonerate himself.
Everyone else fault not his and pretending that he is telling the truth.
I don't believe a word of what he is trotting out.
Yesterday, there was a lady on the wireless who was in charge of a Care Home who had received a large number of patients from the NHS.
She said that on the very night Hancock was telling everyone that the Care Homes had all the PPE they needed, she was parked in a layby buying any PPE she could from other Care Homes.
They had set up a WhatsApp group so that each care home could identify what they had and what they needed so as to be able to trade.
And she said that Hancock claimed that he had written advice to all care homes on what they should and should not be doing. Rubbish she said. The only advice they had ever been given by Hancock was to wash their hands singing Happy Birthday.
I don't think even he does, its par for the job.... apart from Frank Field I don't think I have believed any politician, when talking about themselves, since I was about 35 years old, that's about the time of the Oil Crisis, ROSLA, Nixon's resignation, 3-day week, State of Emergency in NI and major local government re-organisation, none of the leading politicians of the day told the truth about their part in things, except I suppose Nixon.... well at least he resigned!