advertisement


Labour Leader: Keir Starmer V

Status
Not open for further replies.
Probably as good a place to put this as any:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ote-against-policing-bill-climate-catastrophe
Lords began voting on amendments to some of the most controversial aspects of the bill on Monday, with more debate on Wednesday. Next Monday, peers will vote on last-minute government amendments that human rights activists have described as “a dangerous power grab”. With the amendments likely to fail if the lords vote them down, the stage is set for a potential showdown with the government – if Labour also opposes them.
The last-minute government amendments are deeply pernicious additions to a bill that is already dangerously authoritarian. Whether Labouw whips its peers to vote against them will be a useful test of whether Starmer has any spine at all.

The Guardian has a dismal record of standing up for fundamental liberal values recently. but this is not the first time it has covered this aspect of the story. It's also one of Starmer's main cheerleaders, so perhaps there is some hope that the sharpest edges will be knocked off the legislation next week.
 
Sadly I never expect Labour to stand against authoritarianism, so I’ll be very surprised if this gets diluted much if at all.

PS Brexit’s gonna Brexit.
 
Sadly I never expect Labour to stand against authoritarianism, so I’ll be very surprised if this gets diluted much if at all.

PS Brexit’s gonna Brexit.
Agree about Labour - not holding my breath.

Starmer knows that the Tories will use his career as a human rights lawyer against him ("soft on terrorists!").

His response has been to repeatedly go out of his way to show that he doesn't give a shit about human rights.

It might play well with the far-right press but it's not exactly good news for the rest of us.
 
Agree about Labour - not holding my breath.

Starmer must know that the Tories will use his career as a human rights lawyer against him ("soft on terrorists!").

His response has been to repeatedly go out of his way to show that he doesn't give a shit about human rights.
It's more than disappointing, it's also surprising. There are more lucrative areas of the law than human rights, so IME the lawyers who practise in it really care about the issues. It does make me wonder whether there's any mileage in my musings upthread about him biding his time, and not saying anything that might spook the media. As a strategy it has something to commend it while the party in power is quite clearly shaking itself to bits (don't interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes, etc), but it makes it harder to get people to rally to your side once that happens. I think we now, right now, need to see what he stands for and what he's made of. If this Police, Crime Sentencing and Courts bill doesn't get him standing on his hind legs, then that will confirm that all those who have criticised him since he became leader are right. Now's the time, Keir, don't **** it up because we all need for this not to be ****ed up.
 
A key question to Starmer would be whether he would repeal the Police Bill. I don't recall New Labour repealing any significant piece of regressive legislation brought in by Thatcher and co. It them took 3 years to get rid of s28!
 
It's more than disappointing, it's also surprising. There are more lucrative areas of the law than human rights, so IME the lawyers who practise in it really care about the issues. It does make me wonder whether there's any mileage in my musings upthread about him biding his time, and not saying anything that might spook the media. As a strategy it has something to commend it while the party in power is quite clearly shaking itself to bits (don't interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes, etc), but it makes it harder to get people to rally to your side once that happens. I think we now, right now, need to see what he stands for and what he's made of. If this Police, Crime Sentencing and Courts bill doesn't get him standing on his hind legs, then that will confirm that all those who have criticised him since he became leader are right. Now's the time, Keir, don't **** it up because we all need for this not to be ****ed up.
I think the rot set in when he became director of the CPS. He was more than willing to serve the interests of the establishment then:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/16/benefit-cheats-jail-terms

https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/2021/08...rackdown-on-protest-became-their-main-legacy/
The Crown Prosecution Service – led at the time by current Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer – immediately relaxed the threshold used to determine whether or not to press charges. Longstanding advice that suspects under the age of 18 should not be tried for minor offences was suspended. Actions normally regarded as theft were treated as burglary so as to ensure maximum jail time.

Cases were pushed from the magistrates’ to the crown courts, ensuring that longer sentences were available and costing minors their right to anonymity in the press. Existing sentencing guidelines were abandoned. And, despite criticisms that he was playing politics, Starmer ordered the courts to stay open 24/7 for emergency sessions.

While political pressure was undoubtedly put on the police and on the courts, many of these emergency innovations were the result of the justice system taking the initiative. It was, to borrow sociologist Carly Lightowlers and legal scholar Hannah Quirk’s phrase, a moment of “prosecutorial zeal and judicial abandon”. And it culminated in more than 2,000 people facing jail terms which were four and a half times longer than those same offences would normally warrant.
As an aside, isn't it odd that the Conservative Party is the only one of England's three main parties not to be led by a knight of the realm.
 
It's more than disappointing, it's also surprising.

The more I look at Labour from the perspective of an outsider (with no actual knowledge or interest in its internal structure) the more I suspect there is a power structure within that is largely unseen. To my eyes Milliband, Corbyn, and Starmer all changed very significantly once given the leadership role. They all took on the evasive ‘never answer a straight question’ thing Blair brought to our political culture. They all ended up either arguing against or staying silent on things they once believed in; Milliband putting his name to xenophobic mugs, Corbyn failing entirely to take a stand against far-right nationalism, Starmer acting against core civil liberties etc. I am convinced Labour is riddled with a corporate culture of advisors and focus groups and ultimately these control what we see far more than any vision from a leader. The whole thing smacks of the very worst thinking I ever saw in the corporate workplace. A constant pandering to the lowest common denominator thinking that is the target demographic. A cynical ‘Atomic Kitten’-like manufactured conformity.


It is all the stuff we can’t do independently for ourselves. We need roads, hospitals, educational facilities, science, power, security, a social safety net, care for the disabled and mentally ill etc etc and the vast majority of us happy to do our bit paying for it. No society can function well without core infrastructure. We do not need ‘magic money trees’ or any slight of hand to do this. Only fair and progressive taxation. I also have no issue with running a deficit as long as we are getting high quality infrastructure for it. What I won’t accept is money being magic’d-up out of thin air only to be given to spivs like Matt Hancock and then small businesses like mine getting screwed with NI rises etc to cover it.
 
The more I look at Labour from the perspective of an outsider (with no actual knowledge or interest in its internal structure) the more I suspect there is a power structure within that is largely unseen. To my eyes Milliband, Corbyn, and Starmer all changed very significantly once given the leadership role. They all took on the evasive ‘never answer a straight question’ thing Blair brought to our political culture. They all ended up either arguing against or staying silent on things they once believed in; Milliband putting his name to xenophobic mugs, Corbyn failing entirely to take a stand against far-right nationalism, Starmer acting against core civil liberties etc. I am convinced Labour is riddled with a corporate culture of advisors and focus groups and ultimately these control what we see far more than any vision from a leader. The whole thing smacks of the very worst thinking I ever saw in the corporate workplace. A constant pandering to the lowest common denominator thinking that is the target demographic. A cynical ‘Atomic Kitten’-like manufactured conformity.



It is all the stuff we can’t do independently for ourselves. We need roads, hospitals, educational facilities, science, power, security, a social safety net, care for the disabled and mentally ill etc etc and the vast majority of us happy to do our bit paying for it. No society can function well without core infrastructure. We do not need ‘magic money trees’ or any slight of hand to do this. Only fair and progressive taxation. I also have no issue with running a deficit as long as we are getting high quality infrastructure for it. What I won’t accept is money being magic’d-up out of thin air only to be given to spivs like Matt Hancock and then small businesses like mine getting screwed with NI rises etc to cover it.
why do you presume that tax funds government spending? The very fact of money being magic'd up for Matt Hancock et al, shows that it is not.

What is the evidence that tax does fund our government spending?
 
It's more than disappointing, it's also surprising. There are more lucrative areas of the law than human rights, so IME the lawyers who practise in it really care about the issues. It does make me wonder whether there's any mileage in my musings upthread about him biding his time, and not saying anything that might spook the media. As a strategy it has something to commend it while the party in power is quite clearly shaking itself to bits (don't interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes, etc), but it makes it harder to get people to rally to your side once that happens. I think we now, right now, need to see what he stands for and what he's made of. If this Police, Crime Sentencing and Courts bill doesn't get him standing on his hind legs, then that will confirm that all those who have criticised him since he became leader are right. Now's the time, Keir, don't **** it up because we all need for this not to be ****ed up.
To quite a few ( non fundamentalists/tribalists) it’s been obvious for ages that is what he is doing. The tory control of the media has to be taken into consideration.
 
why do you presume that tax funds government spending? The very fact of money being magic'd up for Matt Hancock et al, shows that it is not.

What is the evidence that tax does fund our government spending?

I’d suggest rewatching the MMT videos as it is not a magic money tree. You can’t simply magic-up money endlessly, that way Zimbabwe or North Korea lies. It is a very fine balance between multiple variables and taxation is a key part of it. As Matthew has pointed out endlessly MMT is a very slightly tweaked Keynesian approach. No way in hell is Stephanie Kelton suggesting abandoning taxation! It is a huge part of what the full employment metric brings!
 
I’d suggest rewatching the MMT videos as it is not a magic money tree. You can’t simply magic-up money endlessly, that way Zimbabwe or North Korea lies. It is a very fine balance between multiple variables and taxation is a key part of it. As Matthew has pointed out endlessly MMT is a very slightly tweaked Keynesian approach. No way in hell is Stephanie Kelton suggesting abandoning taxation! It is a huge part of what the full employment metric brings!
None of that answers the question. What is the evidence that tax funds our government spending?
 
Unfortunately standing firmly against the Brexit project means standing firmly behind the EU project, and while leaving the EU is an obvious disaster, swinging firmly behind the EU project also has potential disasters.

Part of the issue behind Brexit was that the Remain campaign, such as it was, did not allow for nuance. It demanded 100% allegiance to one side or the other.

If Remain had won in 2016, would that have created a pressure towards ‘ever closer Union’? Would a successful stand against Brexit after 2016 produce economic security? After such a long tussle, the logic of advantage of remaining in the EU would likely raise the question of strengthening our ties to Europe, perhaps giving up our opt-out and joining adopting Euro? Such a move would mean opening ourselves up to the same vulnerabilities that caused so much pain the Greece and others.

The problems faced by Greece saw a big rise in that far right. Standing firmly for the EU has economic and political risks as much as standing against it.
Strawman... Cameron had an opt out from the euro, an opt out from Schengen, an opt out from ever closer union, opt outs on Justice, etc...
This is the sort of balanced "on the one hand, on the other hand, a plague on both their houses" position that saw Corbyn's Labour party down the path to voting for art. 50, no questions asked, 3-line whip. If you think standing firmly for the EU (whatever that actually means) has the same economic cost as standing against, welcome to the next 50 years (brought to you by JRM).
BTW, the far right in Greece is toast, unless you have redefined what far right means to include Mitsotakis.
 
Rather than start a new thread the Christine Lee/Barry Gardiner thing sounds interesting. Staggering amounts of money “donated”. The Lib Dems received a £5k donation too, but that’s chicken feed compared to best part of £700k to Gardiner when he was in Corbyn’s opposition. Don’t really know what to make of it. If it wasn’t for the vast sums of money involved I’d be inclined to suspect it had squirrel as a key ingredient.
 
^^ I guess they have been holding back this story for the right distraction.

Released this day via "The Ministry of Truth."
 
I’d suggest rewatching the MMT videos as it is not a magic money tree. You can’t simply magic-up money endlessly, that way Zimbabwe or North Korea lies. It is a very fine balance between multiple variables and taxation is a key part of it. As Matthew has pointed out endlessly MMT is a very slightly tweaked Keynesian approach. No way in hell is Stephanie Kelton suggesting abandoning taxation! It is a huge part of what the full employment metric brings!
No, I have not said that MMT is a magic money tree. Neither have I said anything about magicking up money endlessly. Yes, I agree that tax has a role in controlling inflation and serves other purposes as well. And I have not said that Stephanie Kelton suggests abandoning taxation and I have not suggested abandoning taxation.

What I have said, and others including Stephanie Kelton and the Bank of England have said too, is that tax does not fund our government spending. Money isn’t magic’d up, it is created electronically at a computer keyboard. All the usual strictures about the need to control inflation still apply. The role of tax still applies. But tax does not fund our government spending.

When we are told that tax is necessary to fund our government spending, we are being told something that is not true.

Government spent £b’s on QE, on Covid, on wars, and and on bungs to mates of Matt Hancock without recourse to tax.

The serial lies of Boris Johnson, as tragic as they are, are nothing compared to the half century old Tory lie that tax is necessary to fund our government spending. It is a lie the purpose of which is to constrain spending on health, education, infrastructure and anything else that is deemed a public good.

It is a lie that masks a political choice to defund public services, create misery for millions of unemployed, and to ensure the flow of money continues away from the poor and towards the already rich.
 
Strawman... Cameron had an opt out from the euro, an opt out from Schengen, an opt out from ever closer union, opt outs on Justice, etc...
This is the sort of balanced "on the one hand, on the other hand, a plague on both their houses" position that saw Corbyn's Labour party down the path to voting for art. 50, no questions asked, 3-line whip. If you think standing firmly for the EU (whatever that actually means) has the same economic cost as standing against, welcome to the next 50 years (brought to you by JRM).
BTW, the far right in Greece is toast, unless you have redefined what far right means to include Mitsotakis.
I think you may have misread my post. I am not defending Brexit, very far from it, just saying that when it comes to the EU, it is not a 10 out of 10.

I know we have various opt outs, but joining the Euro has dangers we should at least be aware of. Greece got into trouble because it gave up monetary sovereignty and had to peg aspects of it’s economy to an outside currency.

Also I was clearly referring to the rise of the far right in Greece to the time it was in trouble, not today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top