Labour Leader: Keir Starmer VII

[Richard Lines]

The car gives us freedom. Its environmental impact can easily be mitigated with a good dose of pragmatism in place of absolutist dogma.

That freedom comes at a considerable total cost and no it cannot be easily mitigated - that is a fact.

No serious party can or should form a coalition with the Scottish nationalists unless they drop their demand to break up the UK.

Why? Surely if the UK was such a desirable place to be they wouldn't be arguing for an alternative??? The difference between that and the UK departing the EC is.........?

Regards

Richard

 

[ks.234]

I think Labour are doing OK at the moment, will probably form the next government & then you can all moan about that.

What an odd place this is.

You miss the point that labour is adopting precisely that same promises on public spending as the Tories. We might have a change of government at the next general election, but we will not have a significant change to public spending, just a shuffling of deck chairs on a sinking ship.

If we are to tackle the social and environmental crises we are in, we will need government spending. We will not get that from the next government whatever colour their flags

 

[Joe Hutch]

Useful summary of why many people are struggling:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62128069

One key point:

'Rising in-work poverty

Yet while pay has stagnated for most people, the government points out that the poorest workers have received a boost through the growth in the National Living Wage.

At £9.50 an hour for over-23s, it is 42% higher than it was in 2015, making it one of the highest minimum wages in the world. However, two factors have limited the positive impact of this.

Families working minimum-wage jobs often require the benefits system to top up their incomes. But years of benefit changes, cuts and freezes have taken more than £30bn out of the welfare budget for working-age households.

Secondly, as more people move into the private rented sector, rising housing costs have undermined the benefit that higher employment levels and better pay for the worst-off should have brought.'

We need a Labour 'big picture' of how they would tackle increasing poverty. I can see that the business of Opposition is to oppose, and there's plenty of scope for that, but Labour need to do more than say 'We're not the Tories' to a) ensure victory at the next General Election and b) to make that victory worthwhile.

 

[Spraggons Den]

You need to understand that public spending constraints are consistent with tax cuts, so not a dividing line with the Tories but a buy-in to precisely the same narrative.

Whatever you’re selling, I’m not buying it.

 

[Spraggons Den]

You miss the point that labour is adopting precisely that same promises on public spending as the Tories. We might have a change of government at the next general election, but we will not have a significant change to public spending, just a shuffling of deck chairs on a sinking ship.

If we are to tackle the social and environmental crises we are in, we will need government spending. We will not get that from the next government whatever colour their flags

Yawn. I think Woodface is saying that getting the Tories out would be a start and say during a second term Labour could increase public spending, a bit like the Blair-Brown government did. Any other position on spending from Labour at the moment would give our orrible right wing media the opportunity to attack the Achilles heel in the way they did with Saint Corbyn and we all know how that ended.

 

[gavreid]

You miss the point that labour is adopting precisely that same promises on public spending as the Tories. We might have a change of government at the next general election, but we will not have a significant change to public spending, just a shuffling of deck chairs on a sinking ship.

If we are to tackle the social and environmental crises we are in, we will need government spending. We will not get that from the next government whatever colour their flags

Here we are - don't expect anything from a Labour Government, prudence is back. There's little point in policies if you won't fund anything. How about a return to pre-crash levels of public spending? Even that ignores 20 years susbsequent growth!


Labour to pledge ‘ironclad discipline’ with public finances
Shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves will bind a future Labour government to strict borrowing limits


https://www.theguardian.com/politic...edge-ironclad-discipline-with-public-finances

 

[Tony L]

To briefly recap all known Labour policies:

• No Brexit reversal
• No electoral reform
• No economic reform
• No free school meals
• Authoritarianism
• Flags

 

[gavreid]

To briefly recap all known Labour policies:

• No Brexit reversal
• No electoral reform
• No economic reform
• Authoritarianism
• Flags

and no Scottish independence.

 

[laughingboy]

getting the Tories out would be a start and say during a second term Labour could increase public spending, a bit like the Blair-Brown government did. Any other position on spending from Labour at the moment would give our orrible right wing media the opportunity to attack the Achilles heel.

But it is a Tory lie, and - whatever it does - Labour needs to develop and repeat a narrative to counter it.

Defence: the 2008 crisis came out of the banking sector. Labour's fiscal policy had nothing to do with it, and the Tories know it.

Attack: the Tories are lying again. They are the party of economic mismanagement. Their mistakes led to the General Strike in 1926. Their policies caused mass unemployment in the early 1980s and destroyed our industrial base. Their mistakes led to the Lawson boom and bust. Their mistakes led to Black Wednesday 1992. Their austerity choked off our recovery after the Global Financial Crisis and gave us a lost decade of wage stagnation and low growth. The Tories are lying to you about the economy.

EDIT: you can also add the Maudling boom of the early 1960s, and the Barber boom of the early 1970s. (Guardian)

 

[Tony L]

They are the party of economic mismanagement. Their mistakes led to the General Strike in 1926. Their mistakes led to the Lawson boom and bust. Their mistakes led to Black Wednesday 1992. Their austerity choked off our recovery after the Global Financial Crisis and gave us a lost decade of wage stagnation and low growth. The Tories are lying to you about the economy.

This is all absolutely true, but because they control the electoral system and stack it so hugely in their interest they will always be the ruling class/party. Their failures don’t matter as they hold so much power. Labour are the real problem in this picture as they always refuse to get behind real democratic political reform that is needed to break the cycle.

 

[Woodface]

But it is a Tory lie, and - whatever it does - Labour needs to develop and repeat a narrative to counter it.

Defence: the 2008 crisis came out of the banking sector. Labour's fiscal policy had nothing to do with it, and the Tories know it.

Attack: the Tories are lying again. They are the party of economic mismanagement. Their mistakes led to the General Strike in 1926. Their policies caused mass unemployment in the early 1980s and destroyed our industrial base. Their mistakes led to the Lawson boom and bust. Their mistakes led to Black Wednesday 1992. Their austerity choked off our recovery after the Global Financial Crisis and gave us a lost decade of wage stagnation and low growth. The Tories are lying to you about the economy.

EDIT: you can also add the Maudling boom of the early 1960s, and the Barber boom of the early 1970s. (Guardian)

To be fair, Labour have been making all these points.

 

[droodzilla]

I’d be interested if you could suggest something to read arguing for universal services.

I don't have a reference to hand but the arguments for universal services (really, I was thinking of benefits) are well known: cheap to administer, more likely to reach people, and conducive to social solidarity.

Most often, these points are made in arguments against means-testing:

https://cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/files/policypost/The problem with means-testing - FINAL.pdf

I'm sure there's lots more out there, but CPAG is a good start.

 

[Woodface]

I am not sure universal free school meals is a good thing. It has potential but there may be big difference between theory & practice.

Kids are fussy, if they don’t want school meals they’ll just take packed lunch. I am big believer in unintended consequence, the posh kids will just find another way of separating themselves from the riff raff, kids on school meals will be looked down upon en mass & fewer kids could end up taking a hot meal.

Never underestimate the ways of children to defy what is good for them. A parent speaks.

It’s not a hill I would die on basically.

Lots of other areas of concern would trump this IMV.

 

[ks.234]

Whatever you’re selling, I’m not buying it.

You don’t seem to understand what it is you are buying.

 

[ks.234]

Yawn. I think Woodface is saying that getting the Tories out would be a start and say during a second term Labour could increase public spending, a bit like the Blair-Brown government did. Any other position on spending from Labour at the moment would give our orrible right wing media the opportunity to attack the Achilles heel in the way they did with Saint Corbyn and we all know how that ended.

Yawn? I know economic realities are not your thing, but when, and more to the point, how, do you think Starmer will go against the orrible right wing media?. He won’t, because he is not in an ideological place to be able to. He has bought into the orrible right wing agenda, he is wrapped up in it. It will destroy him in his first term. The very thing he and you are buying into is the thing that will destroy any hope of genuine public spending.

 

[ks.234]

Here we are - don't expect anything from a Labour Government, prudence is back. There's little point in policies if you won't fund anything. How about a return to pre-crash levels of public spending? Even that ignores 20 years susbsequent growth!


Labour to pledge ‘ironclad discipline’ with public finances
Shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves will bind a future Labour government to strict borrowing limits


https://www.theguardian.com/politic...edge-ironclad-discipline-with-public-finances

It should be remembered that, as @Le Baron has explained, Blair’s financial policy shifted money supply from government spending to personal debt, much as Clinton did in the US, and it was that, along with the de-regulation of the financial markets and reducing the deficit, that gave us 2008.

 

[gavreid]

It should be remembered that, as @Le Baron has explained, Blair’s financial policy shifted money supply from government spending to personal debt, much as Clinton did in the US, and it was that, along with the de-regulation of the financial markets and reducing the deficit, that gave us 2008.

As Johnny Rotten might have said, it all amounts to little more than shovelling sh1t from one place to another to clear it from the public books.

 

[Seanm]

The caveat in the "ironclad discipline with public finances" routine is that they won't borrow *except to invest*. If McDonnell were in charge you could argue it would be smart messaging, using the obvious incoherence of Tory economics to tackle LAbour's association with economic mismanagement. McDonnell did actually indulge in this kind of stuff himself. There are obvious problems with it but the reputational problem does need to be addressed. However with the current lot in charge the caveat is likely to be dropped, and the pledge will be used to tie their own hands. They're always looking for ways to tie their own hands in this manner.

 

[droodzilla]

I am not sure universal free school meals is a good thing. It has potential but there may be big difference between theory & practice.

Kids are fussy, if they don’t want school meals they’ll just take packed lunch. I am big believer in unintended consequence, the posh kids will just find another way of separating themselves from the riff raff, kids on school meals will be looked down upon en mass & fewer kids could end up taking a hot meal.

Never underestimate the ways of children to defy what is good for them. A parent speaks.

It’s not a hill I would die on basically.

Lots of other areas of concern would trump this IMV.

Actually, "universality" is a red herring here (my bad!). The amendment was to provide free lunches to all pupils in households receiving universal credit - so so we're talking bog-standard passporting of benefits. An excellent proposal, given the growth of in-work poverty and the impact of poor nutrition (not to mention hunger) on a child's ability to learn.

 

[Seanm]

I am not sure universal free school meals is a good thing. It has potential but there may be big difference between theory & practice.

Kids are fussy, if they don’t want school meals they’ll just take packed lunch. I am big believer in unintended consequence, the posh kids will just find another way of separating themselves from the riff raff, kids on school meals will be looked down upon en mass & fewer kids could end up taking a hot meal.

Never underestimate the ways of children to defy what is good for them. A parent speaks.

It’s not a hill I would die on basically.

Lots of other areas of concern would trump this IMV.

If you're a big believer in unintended consequences you should put some actual thought into their significance. Let's see a little cost benefit analysis. Otherwise there's nothing serious about it, it's just finding excuses for not doing things you don't want to see done. All of the above objections strike me as unlikely and also trivial relative to the problem free school meals address.