Labour Leader: Keir Starmer VII

[Joe Hutch]

Yes. We talk about honesty in politics, so why do we accept so many lies?

I don’t expect truth from politicians, and never have done. I remember the late Auberon Waugh describing the Liberal Party’s platform in one General Election as ‘Honesty in politics, and other satirical notions’.

Is there a way around this? We want different, sometimes contradictory things - see Brexit for example. Politicians will therefore promise lots of nice things, and will keep their language as vague as possible so as to avoid making any actual, measurable commitments. We put up with their lies for, say, three terms, by which time the memory of the previous party in power has faded sufficiently for us to give them a chance.

I (only half-jokingly) have suggested that political promises contained in election manifestos should be legally binding, with severe sanctions and disqualification from office if such promises are broken. I really can’t think of any other way of getting politicians to tell fewer lies and half-truths.

 

[Le Baron]

Is there a way around this? We want different, sometimes contradictory things - see Brexit for example. Politicians will therefore promise lots of nice things, and will keep their language as vague as possible so as to avoid making any actual, measurable commitments.

This is not really about political quibbles though, the drivel Rachel Reeves is offering (and which is their attempt at a solid policy stance) is miserable for everyone; unless one happens to be rich, and both major parties' approach suits them anyway.

I (only half-jokingly) have suggested that political promises contained in election manifestos should be legally binding, with severe sanctions and disqualification from office if such promises are broken. I really can’t think of any other way of getting politicians to tell fewer lies and half-truths.

The fundamental problem isn't the promise, but the content of the promise. In this instance the worst thing Reeves could do is keep the promises I posted above. I'd be happier if she was lying her head off.

 

[ks.234]

I don’t expect truth from politicians, and never have done. I remember the late Auberon Waugh describing the Liberal Party’s platform in one General Election as ‘Honesty in politics, and other satirical notions’.

Is there a way around this? We want different, sometimes contradictory things - see Brexit for example. Politicians will therefore promise lots of nice things, and will keep their language as vague as possible so as to avoid making any actual, measurable commitments. We put up with their lies for, say, three terms, by which time the memory of the previous party in power has faded sufficiently for us to give them a chance.

I (only half-jokingly) have suggested that political promises contained in election manifestos should be legally binding, with severe sanctions and disqualification from office if such promises are broken. I really can’t think of any other way of getting politicians to tell fewer lies and half-truths.

But the lies being outlined are economic lies that many people choose to believe in…and vote for.

 

[ks.234]

This is not really about political quibbles though, the drivel Rachel Reeves is offering (and which is their attempt at a solid policy stance) is miserable for everyone; unless one happens to be rich, and both major parties' approach suits them anyway.

The fundamental problem isn't the promise, but the content of the promise. In this instance the worst thing Reeves could do is keep the promises I posted above. I'd be happier if she was lying her head off.

But not only do we vote for lies, we vote for lies that cut things like public services. The possibility that Reeves tells lies for electoral viability, but we hope she is lying because the consequence of her carrying through with her lies just shows the weird knots we tie our selves in.

 

[Le Baron]

But not only do we vote for lies, we vote for lies that cut things like public services. The possibility that Reeves tells lies for electoral viability, but we hope she is lying because the consequence of her carrying through with her lies just shows the weird knots we tie our selves in.

What's most irritating is that a wealth of, mainly centrist, Labour supporters will listen to those announcements and do a fist pump imagining that she's playing some kind of trump card. Or 'talking sense' rather than absolute none-sense.

It's like a knee-jerk now. some New Labour politician says something and it's assumed that it must be the right thing because: a) it's supposed to be the opposite of the Tories; b) but Blair won three elections!; c) it's not Corbyn-communism.

 

[ks.234]

What's most irritating is that a wealth of, mainly centrist, Labour supporters will listen to those announcements and do a fist pump imagining that she's playing some kind of trump card. Or 'talking sense' rather than absolute none-sense.

It's like a knee-jerk now. some New Labour politician says something and it's assumed that it must be the right thing because: a) it's supposed to be the opposite of the Tories; b) but Blair won three elections!; c) it's not Corbyn-communism.

The irony being of course, that they are cheering an ideology in which unemployment and cutting public services to zero are explicit policy objectives. Yay! Let’s celebrate the very policies that a Labour Party is supposed to be against.

 

[Le Baron]

The irony being of course, that they are cheering an ideology in which unemployment and cutting public services to zero are explicit policy objectives. Yay! Let’s celebrate the very policies that a Labour Party is supposed to be against.

Exactly that. Though remember 'leading economists' have approved it! What do we know?

 

[Woodface]

So we have an expert in economics on here now?

Having a quick look at Rachel Reeves bio it looks like she has a pretty solid grasp of economics, seems very smart but she’s one of those women who talks drivel?

I give up.

 

[Le Baron]

So we have an expert in economics on here now?

Rachel declined the invitation. A shame really.

 

[ks.234]

Leading economists have been telling every day for decades that tax funds government spending. A moments thought would reveal that cannot be logically, or functionally true. So why do so many people keep on believing the lie?

 

[ks.234]

So we have an expert in economics on here now?

Having a quick look at Rachel Reeves bio it looks like she has a pretty solid grasp of economics, seems very smart but she’s one of those women who talks drivel?

I give up.

Reeves is making the same promises on economics and using the same narrative as every Tory leadership contender. To imagine that Labour will somehow deliver different outcomes to the Tories by doing the same thing is madness.

The Tories have taken hold of the narrative on the economy, it is the narrative of Thatcherism, and Reeves has adopted the same narrative. Yes, it is drivel.

 

[Le Baron]

Having a quick look at Rachel Reeves bio it looks like she has a pretty solid grasp of economics, seems very smart but she’s one of those women who talks drivel?

I give up.

'Seems'? How are you judging?

Go back up and read the post I posted (with linked Guardian coverage) about her statements for the economy. I'm always eager to learn so a few pointers as to what I have wrong and what she has wrong/right, will be be appreciated. Especially the statements from 'leading economists' at the end.

 

[Richard Lines]

Having a quick look at Rachel Reeves bio it looks like she has a pretty solid grasp of economics, seems very smart but she’s one of those women who talks drivel?

I would have to agree with Woodface she seems much more qualified then I am in the area of economics.

I'm afraid I "turn off" whenever I hear her start talking as she is just "too earnest" and needs to spend a considerable amount of time being "coached" so that she comes across a great deal better. I can't be the only one thinks this about her current presentational skills.

Regards

Richard

 

[Woodface]

'Seems'? How are you judging?

Go back up and read the post I posted (with linked Guardian coverage) about her statements for the economy. I'm always eager to learn so a few pointers as to what I have wrong and what she has wrong/right, will be be appreciated. Especially the statements from 'leading economists' at the end.

The fact that she went to LSE & worked for BoE. Economists often disagree, I don’t think you can say she is talking drivel.

Ultimately she is also a politician & has to utter certain things.

I find a lot of assumptions are made, people are called thick because you may not agree with them. She’s probably clever enough to recognise drivel?

 

[ks.234]

I would have to agree with Woodface she seems much more qualified then I am in the area of economics.

I'm afraid I "turn off" whenever I hear her start talking as she is just "too earnest" and needs to spend a considerable amount of time being "coached" so that she comes across a great deal better. I can't be the only one thinks this about her current presentational skills.

Regards

Richard

It doesn’t take expertise or intelligence to recognise the lies we are being told by ‘leading economists’.

 

[ks.234]

The fact that she went to LSE & worked for BoE. Economists often disagree, I don’t think you can say she is talking drivel.

Ultimately she is also a politician & has to say certain things.

I find a lot of assumptions are made, people are called thick because you may not agree with them. She’s probably clever enough to recognise drivel?

But we’re not talking about economist disagreeing, we’re talking about Reeves agreeing 100% with the Tories.

 

[Woodface]

I would have to agree with Woodface she seems much more qualified then I am in the area of economics.

I'm afraid I "turn off" whenever I hear her start talking as she is just "too earnest" and needs to spend a considerable amount of time being "coached" so that she comes across a great deal better. I can't be the only one thinks this about her current presentational skills.

Regards

Richard

At the same time I probably had enough of overly coached politicians. I’d settle for boring & competent.

 

[Joe Hutch]

Shows you how closely I follow politics; reading the above few posts I was thinking 'who's Rachel Reeves?' I thought Annalise Dodds was still Shadow Chancellor!

 

[Richard Lines]

It doesn’t take expertise or intelligence to recognise the lies we are being told by ‘leading economists’.

I would have to disagree it would certainly take someone with far more knowledge than I have regarding economics as I wouldn't have a clue as to what it takes to run an economy, let alone a successful one. In order to assert lies were being told I'd need to fully understand the subject matter and also be able to offer a counter argument???

I'll stick to household finances and trying to explain to my wife that in addition to taking money out of the bank that she tries contributing at a rate greater than the withdrawals. Thinking about it maybe that isn't so different from larger scale economics in that she assures me the mare we just bought will be able to produce a foal a year and her mother just won Overall Breed Champion at the GYS......

Regards

Richard

 

[Woodface]

When I did a bit of economics as an UG it did strike me that all theories have a tendency to get trashed by the next in line. It’s certainly not an exact science. Of course, very few get to try their theories out in the real world.