Labour Leader: Keir Starmer VI

[Brian]

A new party will change nothing. If anything it will only splinter and dilute the anti-Tory majority even further. The core problem is Labour as they are anti-democratic and prop up the failed system whilst offering nothing of value as a counterpoint.

In 2017 Labour offered something very different to the tories and very nearly got there.

Your dislike of Labour and your wish for complete reform of the system blinds you to the fact Labour is not the problem here. The problem are tories and those who search for any excuse to not support the only viable alternative.

What you describe sounds great, I would love to see it but it isn’t going to happen. That’s the real world and in that world I would prefer the tories be out of govt.

 

[Cav]

To my mind it has to happen in stages. The first stage is to recognise the problem is one of systemic failure, and our political classes are not there yet by a long way. The second is to grasp that the existing system is the way it is to return absolute power to a wealthy elite with only a fraction of the electorate behind them. It is what it is. It is doing what it was designed to do. The third can only really be achieved a shared manifesto pledge between all non-Tory parties to implement a proportional and accountable democracy. This would ensure there will never again be a Tory majority as they have never once in history had a mandate to rule. That is phase one done.

Phase two is a gradual rebalancing and rebuilding into a consensus form of government. It will be whatever we vote it to be, stale old powers will wither as new views and perspectives emerge. I’m sure there will be some very wrong turns along the way, but we have to trust in people’s ability to make the choices that define their own lives. The current situation has led us to ruin, isolation, gross inequality, institutional racism and people (often the mentally ill) freezing to death in shop doorways. It clearly has not worked. In fact it is so absurdly unbalanced it did not ever deserve to work. Even more so now the failure is so obvious that the right-wing minority rule are ramping up powers and removing our rights to enable their power via force and violence.

And how will any of that be brought about? Where we are is where we have been for a century and there is no indication that it will change.

 

[Cav]

Compulsory voting and Political Education for all.

OK, so you must vote. Why would that shift the political landscape unless you hope that those forced to vote will vote against the Government that compelled them? Why would a Government risk that?

Political Education? Education policy is set by the Government in power so not sure what that would look like.

 

[Darmok]

OK, so you must vote. Why would that shift the political landscape unless you hope that those forced to vote will vote against the Government that compelled them? Why would a Government risk that?

Political Education? Education policy is set by the Government in power so not sure what that would look like.

ISTM the stupid have the majority atm.

Many decent folk refuse to soil themselves by getting involved.

 

[Tony L]

And how will any of that be brought about? Where we are is where we have been for a century and there is no indication that it will change.

And that is entirely down to the Labour Party. As prime enablers they own Tory rule. They are far more of an issue IMHO than the Tory Party as at least the Tories are acting in their own self interest, for their own corruption. We know what they are. Labour are willing lapdogs in a system which has allowed them power for far less than a quarter of the past 120 years. They are the blockage in the shitpipe. The legitimiser of elite Tory rule. There have only ever been three Labour leaders that led the party to victory; Attlee, Wilson & Blair. It is an epic failure as a political entity as it lacks any basic diagnostic skills or ability to fight. It is institutionalised, brain-dead and cowardly. It doesn’t even understand the bloody question!

 

[ks.234]

And how will any of that be brought about? Where we are is where we have been for a century and there is no indication that it will change.

It is obvious the change will not come from above, even when we have a party who has PR as a central objective, their central driving principle fizzles to nothing after the first sniff of power. Therefore and momentum for change is will have to come from below. How we do that I don’t know.

Perhaps we need to start a national conversation around common values. Very difficult with so many different social, cultural and political values at variance, but surely the value of public services like health and education and of course tackling climate change are something that just about everyone can get behind.

The big question of course is who will pay for it? Which is why I feel very strongly that exploding the myth that the taxpayer has to pay for spending is so central to any improvement to our society, our politics and our environment.

 

[Cav]

And that is entirely down to the Labour Party. As prime enablers they own Tory rule. They are far more of an issue IMHO than the Tory Party as at least the Tories are acting in their own self interest. Labour are willing lapdogs in a system which has allowed them power for far less than a quarter of the past 120 years. They are the blockage in the shitpipe. There have only ever been three Labour leaders that led the party to victory; Attlee, Wilson & Blair. It is an epic failure as a political entity as it lacks any basic diagnostic skills or ability to fight. It is brain-dead and cowardly. It doesn’t even understand the bloody question!

It is always Labours fault for you.

Why is your default position always to blame Labour? Why nor blame those who vote Tory which at least would be rational. Leaving aside your hatred of Labour, what is the realistic and practical solution to the 2 Party system.

 

[Tony L]

Good grief. I can’t be arsed typing the same post again in the vague hope you may understand it! I’ve already detailed what I view as the only workable strategy out from where we are.

 

[Cav]

It is obvious the change will not come from above, even when we have a party who has PR as a central,objective, their central driving principle fizzles to nothing after the first sniff of power. Therefore and momentum for change is will have to come from below. How we do that I don’t know.

Perhaps we need to start a national conversation around common values. Very difficult with so many different social, cultural and political values at variance, but surely the value of public services like health and education and of course tackling climate change are something that just about everyone can get behind.

The big question of course is who will pay for it? Which is why I feel very strongly that exploding the myth that the taxpayer has to pay for spending is so central to any improvement to our society, our politics and our environment.

As to your last paragraph how would that, if it were achievable, change anything?

 

[ks.234]

As to your last paragraph how would that, if it were achievable, change anything?

At present any conversation about improving Health, education etc, and introducing measures to tackle climate change will be constrained by the need for the taxpayer to pay for it. If there is a need for more doctors, nurses, teachers etc and improved resources, training, facilities etc, and if there is a need to employ people to build cycle tracks, install solar panels, heat pumps, send teams abroad to tackle climate change in developing countries, the extent to which any of that is possible will be limited by those with only limited income to pay for it.

But our government is the sole issuer of our currency. It can issue as much currency as needed. The idea that tax has a role in purchasing the things that government buys when it spends is a myth. The Household in this country has to have an income in our national currency before it can spend, but this rule does not apply to a government like ours because it is the issuer of our currency. It can produce the currency it needs at the touch of a button.

If the myth about the role of tax is exposed, and the capacity to spend for need realised, then spending to fulfil genuine need can be achieved without risk to inflation and without the cost being shifted onto the taxpayer. We can then have a national conversation about what is really needed to improve the world we live in free from the artificial constraints imposed by Tory Monetarism.

PS. There will be other constraints to spending, but tax revenue is not one them.

 

[TheDecameron]

In 2017 Labour offered something very different to the tories and very nearly got there.

Your dislike of Labour and your wish for complete reform of the system blinds you to the fact Labour is not the problem here. The problem are tories and those who search for any excuse to not support the only viable alternative.

What you describe sounds great, I would love to see it but it isn’t going to happen. That’s the real world and in that world I would prefer the tories be out of govt.

LOL. To get Labour yer have to vote Labour.

 

[Brian]

Good grief. I can’t be arsed typing the same post again in the vague hope you may understand it! I’ve already detailed what I view as the only workable strategy out from where we are.

It is not a workable, realistic strategy.

I should add, given your wish for change it would make more sense for you to despise the LibDems given the great sell-out in 2010. That is as close as we are going to get to PR and your lot put themselves first.

 

[Tony L]

I should add, given your wish for change it would make more sense for you to despise the LibDems given the great sell-out in 2010. That is as close as we are going to get to PR and your lot put themselves first.

They aren’t ‘my lot’. I don’t have a ‘lot’ and never have had. By simply having PR as a manifesto pledge they are 120 years ahead of Labour even if they are pretty crap overall.

Installing a democracy is the only solution to where we are. The alternative is endless Tory rule as Labour have proven for best part of 80% of the past 120 years they aren’t even in contention. All they achieve is to give a thin veneer of respectability to endless elite Tory rule by willingly playing a pantomime “opposition” role within a corrupt and failed system.

 

[Brian]

LOL. To get Labour yer have to vote Labour.

Did you check google yet on tactical voting? Seems not.

Tell me how those 40 seats you support being taken from Labour helps the party win a UK majority.

 

[TheDecameron]

“I virtually never vote Labour now, I vote tactically”.
So in an English constituency where Labour can’t win, which party do you ‘vote tactically’ for then?

 

[Brian]

LOL

Tell me how those 40 seats you support being taken from Labour helps the party win a UK majority.

Google will explain all you need to know about fptp and tactical voting.

You support people voting SNP in a constituency held by Labour, that's supporting and hoping for the loss of a Labour seat. You are pleased Labour lost 40 seats to the nationalists. Under such curcumstances your relentless whining about the tories and brexit is rather misplaced. Your position seems a bit stupid really.

 

[Tony L]

Tell me how those 40 seats you support being taken from Labour helps the party win a UK majority.

Maybe, like me, he doesn’t want a Labour majority. Labour are the problem. We will only see electoral reform once the penny drops that Labour have to join the other progressives and fight the existing system as a whole. They need their feet holding to the fire and the SNP can help do that.

 

[TheDecameron]

It’s always someone else’s fault. Wants everyone to vote Labour but doesn’t even vote for them himself. Constantly endorsing Tory and UKIP posts on the forum while sticking the boot into actual Labour voters. It’s pure trolling.

 

[MikeMA]

Unfortunately, while your tax does not fund government spending, it will still be needed for other purposes

This is the bit I don't get. What other purposes? The way government revenue is raised and spent derives its legal basis from various finance, appropriation and supply acts initiated by the government of the day and voted into existence by parliament. With very few exceptions* tax revenues and borrowings cannot be appropriated and spent by anyone except the government of the day and only when voted by parliament, so it's all government expenditure. What other purposes are there and who is spending it?

Even if the BOE simply creates money and buys government debt surely that is simply just another revenue stream, albeit not taxation, and it can't be spent by anyone except the government with parliamentary authority. The exception would be where the BoE buys existing government debt already held by private individuals or institutions, in which case it wouldn't be government revenue.

Am I missing something? - quite likely !

*Judges salaries and interest on the national debt are direct charges on the consolidated fund and not subject to parliamentary vote.

 

[ks.234]

This is the bit I don't get. What other purposes? The way government revenue is raised and spent derives its legal basis from various finance, appropriation and supply acts initiated by the government of the day and voted into existence by parliament. With very few exceptions* tax revenues and borrowings cannot be appropriated and spent by anyone except the government of the day and only when voted by parliament, so it's all government expenditure. What other purposes are there and who is spending it?

Even if the BOE simply creates money and buys government debt surely that is simply just another revenue stream, albeit not taxation, and it can't be spent by anyone except the government with parliamentary authority. The exception would be where the BoE buys existing government debt already held by private individuals or institutions, in which case it wouldn't be government revenue.

Am I missing something? - quite likely !

*Judges salaries and interest on the national debt are direct charges on the consolidated fund and not subject to parliamentary vote.

The other purposes for tax are to control inflation, encourage spending, to promote enterprises that might be beneficial with tax breaks or discourage others. You might also want to take money away from economic activity that is considered parasitic to the economy.

It might be useful to look at the word ‘revenue’ here. Revenue has come to mean income, and nowadays we call the income from gate receipts at a football ground ‘revenue’, but a football club, like the rest of us, does need an income in order to spend whereas government is unique in that it does not. The word ‘revenue’ comes from old French meaning ‘to return’. Tax is returned to government and is then deducted from the deficit. It is used, along with borrowing, to balance the books. It doesn’t also fund extra spending, it can’t because it’s been deleted out of existence, it is just a number taken away from another number created when government spends.