Labour Leader: Keir Starmer VII

[Tony L]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with supporting business & wanting the economy to grow.

Absolutely, though people really do need to grasp Tory tax cuts, ‘small state’, ‘bonfire of red tape’ etc has absolutely nothing to do with business and everything about repaying billionaire party donors and tax-exile press barons in kind. These days the Tory Party are merely the money-laundering front for the billionaire oligarchy that own them. The past 12 years of running the country’s businesses into the ground and then defiling the corpse whilst party donors pocket £millions is all the evidence anyone could ever need. Real businesses get nothing but hollow rhetoric from an entirely corrupt kleptocracy who make their real political decisions at £20k a seat black-tie policy and peerage sales events. The party of “f*** business” (unless they are paying backhanders).

 

[Woodface]

Absolutely, though people really do need to grasp Tory tax cuts, ‘small state’, ‘bonfire of red tape’ etc has absolutely nothing to do with business and everything about repaying billionaire party donors and tax-exile press barons in kind. These days the Tory Party are merely the money-laundering front for the billionaire oligarchy that own them. The past 12 years of running the country’s business into the ground and then defiling the corpse whilst party donors pocket £millions is all the evidence anyone could ever need. It is nothing but hollow rhetoric from an entirely corrupt kleptocracy who make their real political decisions at £20k a seat black-tie policy and peerage sales events. The party of “f*** business” (unless they are paying the party).

I don’t disagree.

Reducing ‘red tape’ probably does help small businesses but it ultimately gets massively exploited by bigger ones. I’ve always worked in the private sector, I get a bit tired of some of the ‘holier than thou’ rhetoric.

I just do my best to contribute to society & bring my kids up to do the same. Have never & will never vote Tory.

 

[Steven Toy]

You have used this argument before and I am afraid to say it doesn’t get better with time. I see a lot of cyclists on my commute to work on fast rural B roads - the worst offenders at not giving room to cyclists are the SUV/4x4 drivers. There is no way I would cycle at those times.

Ah yes, those too. I used to call them fanny cages. They don't just run cyclists off the road...

 

[Seanm]

I don’t know if this is in direct response to Reeves boasting about how much she loves austerity in the middle of a cost of living crisis, but that would make sense:

https://twitter.com/leftiestats/status/1547562742042677250?s=21&t=HsGS9YGD4EiSR1Cnr6zNwA

 

[droodzilla]

One for @Tony L:

https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1547653053494439939

Starmer confirming that he has no interest in electoral form.

And, unfortunately, he's done a good job of killing internal party democracy so there's almost no chance that members will be able to force electoral reform on the leadership.

Edit: as a special bonus, it's yet another step back from what he said when running for leader:

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk...l-convention-and-proportional-representation/

Starmer might be the most dishonest man in British politcs, against stiff competition.

 

[Tony L]

Starmer could not be more depressing. I’ve never had much time for Labour but I’m at the stage now I honestly think they need defunding and removing. The trade unions should just pull the plug and switch to the Greens or whoever. Time to kill Labour and let something else emerge naturally as an opposition to elite Tory rule, monarchy etc.

The one thing I’d caveat this with is I get the impression that Labour leaders have little impact on party trajectory. To my eyes Milliband, Corbyn and Starmer all gave the impression of far more integrity and conviction before they got the job, and as soon as they did they just turned into evasive fence-sitting cowards. I have a feeling the real power is elsewhere, but I’m not sure whether it is blind panic at the far-right tabloids, focus groups etc, or whether there is an overly-powerful insurgency somewhere the equivalent of the ERG in the Tories. Whatever it is the party is absolutely unfit for purpose.

 

[martin clark]

Starmer could not be more depressing. ...

Exactly!

Utterly miserable to watch Westminster from any POV; total failure of Government, for tens of years; matched by total failure of those who should be pitched against the directions of travel, to mount effective Opposition - against an open goal.

Total dysfunction vs: the very effective capture, by those exploiting such.

 

[Spraggons Den]

One for @Tony L:

https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1547653053494439939

Starmer confirming that he has no interest in electoral form.

And, unfortunately, he's done a good job of killing internal party democracy so there's almost no chance that members will be able to force electoral reform on the leadership.

Edit: as a special bonus, it's yet another step back from what he said when running for leader:

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk...l-convention-and-proportional-representation/

Starmer might be the most dishonest man in British politcs, against stiff competition.

Sir Keere said it was not a priority for an incoming Labour government (doesn’t that have a nice ring to it) - he didn’t rule it out or state he has no interest in changing it.

 

[Woodface]

One for @Tony L:

https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1547653053494439939

Starmer confirming that he has no interest in electoral form.

And, unfortunately, he's done a good job of killing internal party democracy so there's almost no chance that members will be able to force electoral reform on the leadership.

Edit: as a special bonus, it's yet another step back from what he said when running for leader:

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk...l-convention-and-proportional-representation/

Starmer might be the most dishonest man in British politcs, against stiff competition.

Really, the most dishonest?

It’s equally dishonest to adopt a fixed position & look for ‘evidence’ to support it

 

[ff1d1l]

Really, the most dishonest?

It’s equally dishonest to adopt a fixed position & look for ‘evidence’ to support it

No shortage of evidence...

 

[Spraggons Den]

Well on the plus side at least his cooling on PR is not a u turn on one of his pledges as the only constitutional one to do with Westminster that I can see was abolition of the House of Lords.

 

[Tony L]

Well on the plus side at least his cooling on PR is not a u turn on one of his pledges as the only constitutional one to do with Westminster that I can see was abolition of the House of Lords.

Which would be an absolute disaster given he is a supporter of the Tory minority rule FPTP represents. The HoL, even though it is hugely flawed as a concept and has zero democratic legitimacy, is all too often the only remaining block to Tory extremism and corruption. As the Conservative Party hurtles to to furthest extremes of the Trump/oligarch-funded hard-right the HoL does at least represent the more moderate party of generations past. It serves as some checks and balances within a basically failed system. It should be removed only after the introduction of a proper representative democracy, but until that point we really need it, just as we need the ECHR etc. They are all we have between us and a feral Conservative Party that is prepared to walk all over local and international law and are actively restricting what little democratic process exists in the UK (Elections Bill etc).

 

[Tony L]

Jo Maugham on Starmer (Twitter). It looks like Starmer got absolutely destroyed by Andrew Marr on LBC recently for evading or abandoning all his pledges. On my Twitter feed there was a clip below the Maugham thread which showed him floundering on Labour’s well-worn ambiguity fence trying not to answer what were straight questions. Not a good look and Maugham is exactly right in what he says IMHO.

 

[droodzilla]

Which would be an absolute disaster given he is a supporter of the Tory minority rule FPTP represents. The HoL, even though it is hugely flawed as a concept and has zero democratic legitimacy, is all too often the only remaining block to Tory extremism and corruption. As the Conservative Party hurtles to to furthest extremes of the Trump/oligarch-funded hard-right the HoL does at least represent the more moderate party of generations past. It serves as some checks and balances within a basically failed system. It should be removed only after the introduction of a proper representative democracy, but until that point we really need it, just as we need the ECHR etc. They are all we have between us and a feral Conservative Party that is prepared to walk all over local and international law and are actively restricting what little democratic process exists in the UK (Elections Bill etc).

Don't worry. He'll break that promise too (assuming he hasn't already).

 

[Seanm]

Jo Maugham on Starmer (Twitter). It looks like Starmer got absolutely destroyed by Andrew Marr on LBC recently for evading or abandoning all his pledges. On my Twitter feed there was a clip below the Maugham thread which showed him floundering on Labour’s well-worn ambiguity fence trying not to answer what were straight questions. Not a good look and Maugham is exactly right in what he says IMHO.

The pledges thing was always money in the bank for the media/Conservatives. The Sensible pundits heaped praise on Starmer for lying to get elected, like it was some kind of strategic master stroke rather than another milestone on the road to the total delegitimisation of politics, so you can see he’s bewildered now at having to defend himself. But if he hasn’t learned by now that media support for politicians is entirely at their discretion then really. They’ve got rid of the clown they put it Downing Street so now they can afford to remind the B team who’s boss.

 

[droodzilla]

Jo Maugham on Starmer (Twitter). It looks like Starmer got absolutely destroyed by Andrew Marr on LBC recently for evading or abandoning all his pledges. On my Twitter feed there was a clip below the Maugham thread which showed him floundering on Labour’s well-worn ambiguity fence trying not to answer what were straight questions. Not a good look and Maugham is exactly right in what he says IMHO.

Good to see someone holding Starmer to account on this issue. One would think that an MP brazenly lying to party members to get elected would be a significant concern, as trust in politicians spirals down the plughole, but I can count the number of times I've seen this issue raised on one hand.

Here's the clip from the Andrew Marr show on LBC:

https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1547659609430564866

What sticks in the craw is the way Starmer is presented (by himself and his media cheerleaders) as a man of integrity, when he is anything but that.

Bonus clip showing Starmer flat-out lying:

https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1547826742978498560

My position is simple (perhaps it is naive): I want politicians to be honest, and I want them to be held to account when they lie. Politics in the UK would be immeasurably better if both were the case.

 

[Spraggons Den]

Which would be an absolute disaster given he is a supporter of the Tory minority rule FPTP represents. The HoL, even though it is hugely flawed as a concept and has zero democratic legitimacy, is all too often the only remaining block to Tory extremism and corruption. As the Conservative Party hurtles to to furthest extremes of the Trump/oligarch-funded hard-right the HoL does at least represent the more moderate party of generations past. It serves as some checks and balances within a basically failed system. It should be removed only after the introduction of a proper representative democracy, but until that point we really need it, just as we need the ECHR etc. They are all we have between us and a feral Conservative Party that is prepared to walk all over local and international law and are actively restricting what little democratic process exists in the UK (Elections Bill etc).

He plans to replace it with a regionally elected apparatus to perform the same revising function as the current HoL, I think.

 

[Le Baron]

Let's return to the business of New Labour economic failure which shows how they are IDENTICAL to the Tories.

Peruse the article in the link below, but first here's a bit of it so we can savour how much absolute rubbish the press and 'leading economists' feed the public:

Shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves will bind a future Labour government to strict borrowing limits

Labour has committed to “ironclad discipline” with the public finances and cutting Britain’s debt burden if it gets into power, in an attempt to draw a clear dividing line with Tory leadership hopefuls promising billions of pounds in tax cuts.

Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, will use a speech on Wednesday to bind a future Labour government to strict borrowing limits designed to protect the public finances while allowing it to lay the foundations for a growing economy.

See that? Now anyone who has been following discussions here knows Rachel Reeves falls at the first hurdle. Why? Because the government doesn't borrow its own currency. And Britain's "debt burden" is a complete fantasy. Billions of pounds in tax cuts by the Tories will no doubt be for mostly rich people, but do you know what tax cuts are? A form of spending. That's right, it means spending: reducing the amount of spent money that returns to the government sector (as in the government sector in the sectoral balances). Bit of a problem that isn't it? It's what happens when Labour bigmouths just repeat ideological policy without thought or to woo other people who don't think it through.

So what is Rachel Reeves saying? She's saying something contradictory: we'll spend less, but we'll grow the economy. The notion being that somehow the government has to keep its eye on a limited purse and also just tax lots of money out of the economy. Which means (apart from tax dodgers who always maintain wealth) that they plan a government surplus, which means a public deficit. I.e. you having no or little money flowing towards you. Think hard about that.

As the candidates vying to replace Boris Johnson as prime minister promise tax cuts worth billions of pounds without being clear on how they would be funded, Reeves will argue “the tables have turned” on fiscal credibility.

“Any lingering sense that the Conservatives are the party of economic responsibility has been shredded to pieces over the past few days,” she will say.

It certainly has shredded, but Reeves thinks by saying we'll put a massive brake on the tool for creating economic recovery, that she's proposing the opposite. We don't 'fund tax cuts', tax cuts are already 'funding' in the sense they leave money in pockets. Usually the wrong pockets, but that's a choice.

Leading economists have said the sweeping cuts would risk fuelling higher levels of inflation, while either driving up government borrowing or requiring steep cuts to public services.

Here we have 'leading economists' saying that merely cuts 'fuels inflation'. Nothing about where cuts ought to be to enable good use of spending. Also saying last week that taxation, the destruction of spent money, "fuels inflation". Incoherent nonsense. If you pull the plug out of your bath and water disappears, it doesn't make the bath overflow. The borrowing thing we've already addressed. Steep cuts to public services though? This is what is called : monetarism or 'Thatcherism'. These are neither economists nor 'leading' they are ideologues and very dangerous ones.

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

 

[ks.234]

Let's return to the business of New Labour economic failure which shows how they are IDENTICAL to the Tories.

Peruse the article in the link below, but first here's a bit of it so we can savour how much absolute rubbish the press and 'leading economists' feed the public:



See that? Now anyone who has been following discussions here knows Rachel Reeves falls at the first hurdle. Why? Because the government doesn't borrow its own currency. And Britain's "debt burden" is a complete fantasy. Billions of pounds in tax cuts by the Tories will no doubt be for mostly rich people, but do you know what tax cuts are? A form of spending. That's right, it means spending: reducing the amount of spent money that returns to the government sector (as in the government sector in the sectoral balances). Bit of a problem that isn't it? It's what happens when Labour bigmouths just repeat ideological policy without thought or to woo other people who don't think it through.

So what is Rachel Reeves saying? She's saying something contradictory: we'll spend less, but we'll grow the economy. The notion being that somehow the government has to keep its eye on a limited purse and also just tax lots of money out of the economy. Which means (apart from tax dodgers who always maintain wealth) that they plan a government surplus, which means a public deficit. I.e. you having no or little money flowing towards you. Think hard about that.

It certainly has shredded, but Reeves thinks by saying we'll put a massive brake on the tool for creating economic recovery, that she's proposing the opposite. We don't 'fund tax cuts', tax cuts are already 'funding' in the sense they leave money in pockets. Usually the wrong pockets, but that's a choice.

Here we have 'leading economists' saying taxation, the destruction of spent money, "fuels inflation". Incoherent nonsense. If you pull the plug out of your bath and water disappears, it doesn't make the bath overflow. The borrowing thing we've already addressed. Steep cuts to public services though? This is what is called : monetarism or 'Thatcherism'. These are neither economists nor 'leading' they are ideologues and very dangerous ones.

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

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

 

[Le Baron]

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

General ignorance and habit are the main causes I suppose. It seems to be more fun discussing and compiling polls to see which pointless idiot will replace Johnson, rather than figuring out what they say really means.