Labour Leader: Keir Starmer VII

[Tony L]

I’d be happy enough if Starmer just stood up for human rights, civil liberties and showed some solidarity with the trade unions that fund his party against the brutality of the Tory economic failure that has driven millions into poverty. That done shine a spotlight on the failed electoral system that allows Tory corruption to absolutely gut this country. There is a lot to work with before getting into anything technical. To be honest my primary attack against this Tory government would be to shine the very brightest light on their dodgy covert funding and just ask who owns them and what are they buying?! Get them to explain every donation, every “directorship”, every peerage etc etc. There should be a police investigation into the ERG for a start.

 

[Joe Hutch]

Especially so given that so much of their funding has come from Russia. It is 'interesting' how little attention this has received from the press/media.

 

[ks.234]

I’d be happy enough if Starmer just stood up for human rights, civil liberties and showed some solidarity with the trade unions that fund his party against the brutality of the Tory economic failure that has driven millions into poverty. That done shine a spotlight on the failed electoral system that allows Tory corruption to absolutely gut this country. There is a lot to work with before getting into anything technical. To be honest my primary attack against this Tory government would be to shine the very brightest light on their dodgy covert funding and just ask who owns them and what are they buying?! Get them to explain every donation, every “directorship”, every peerage etc etc. There should be a police investigation into the ERG for a start.

Labour, or any other party for that matter, cannot highlight Tory economic failure while being a part of it. We see time and time again how any criticism of Tory failures is met with a variation of TINA, that there is no alternative that does not lead to economic failure. TINA tends to get applause and general approval. If Labour, or anyone else, is to criticise Tory failure, they will have to set out a clear alternative, and Labour’s ‘ironclad discipline’ does the opposite.

 

[Brian]

Neoliberalism really is at the root of the problem globally.

 

[Woodface]

The basic problem is that people claim expertise or cite other sources. That’s fine as far as it goes. I am not about to study the source material in depth so have no idea whether they are interpreting it correctly.

Calling others out for lack of expertise etc is just rude, I dare say there are many people who are very clever but just like the banter & have a laugh with it all.

I have a fair few friends who are far smarter than me, I know their bonafides unlike some random bloke on here who has all the answers.

I always wonder why such great minds waste so much time on here talking to relative morons like me.

 

[Tony L]

Labour, or any other party for that matter, cannot highlight Tory economic failure while being a part of it. We see time and time again how any criticism of Tory failures is met with a variation of TINA, that there is no alternative that does not lead to economic failure. TINA tends to get applause and general approval. If Labour, or anyone else, is to criticise Tory failure, they will have to set out a clear alternative, and Labour’s ‘ironclad discipline’ does the opposite.

I’m not arguing with your core point. I just think given the literacy of the UK electorate you’ll have a very hard time getting people to understand it, let alone accept it. If I was strategising an opposition campaign my attack areas would be:

a) Conservative Party corruption: expose exactly who is paying for them, question what exactly the party is selling, and why their hugely wealthy donors are prepared to pay so much for it. Drill this down from offshore billionaire oligarch level right down to specific Tory PMs with their bogus “directorships” etc offered by corporations for influence and state access. They are all dirty top to bottom. The rock they hide under needs lifting up and daylight allowed in.

b) Tie the economic decline and ‘cost of living crisis’ to this rank corruption pointing out that it is the normal working person who gets to pay for tax breaks for millionaires, dodgy offshore wealth shenanigans, non-doms, tax haven scams etc. We all get to pay for this oligarch money-laundering and criminality in homelessness, foodbanks, a failing NHS, lost productivity and opportunity, potholes, shit transport and every other facet of ‘austerity’. Side with the trade union movement in this fight and explain they are merely standing against Tory corruption and trough-feeding.

c) Challenge the broken undemocratic electoral system and ask why a party who represent so few are in a position of absolute power so much of the time. Tie things like the Elections Bill to its US Republican voter suppression equivalents. Explain that the Tory Party is now a far-right Trump party no matter who leads it.

I don’t think you need more than that to win. I didn’t even mention Brexit!

 

[Woodface]

You need 2 or 3 attack lines, repetition wins. Big problem Labour had at last election is they had too many policy lines, many sensible policies don’t play well with the electorate but become popular after the fact.

Free broadband will be popular after the fact but not as a pledge, people will think, “I’ve been paying all this time why should others get it for free?”

I can’t remember whether the banning of smoking in pubs was ever a pre-election pledge, I certainly recall it wasn’t without controversy but can anyone now imagine sitting in a smokey pub?

 

[Seanm]

The basic problem is that people claim expertise or cite other sources. That’s fine as far as it goes. I am not about to study the source material in depth so have no idea whether they are interpreting it correctly.

Calling others out for lack of expertise etc is just rude, I dare say there are many people who are very clever but just like the banter & have a laugh with it all.

I have a fair few friends who are far smarter than me, I know their bonafides unlike some random bloke on here who has all the answers.

I always wonder why such great minds waste so much time on here talking to relative morons like me.

You’re constantly calling people out for having an opinion without having the required expertise. You’re doing it in this very post. It’s your chief contribution to the forum, other than telling LP12 owners it’s only a record player.

 

[ks.234]

I’m not arguing with your core point. I just think given the literacy of the UK electorate you’ll have a very hard time getting people to understand it, let alone accept it. If I was strategising an opposition campaign my attack areas would be:

a) Conservative Party corruption: expose exactly who is paying for them, question what exactly the party is selling, and why their hugely wealthy donors are prepared to pay so much for it. Drill this down from offshore billionaire oligarch level right down to specific Tory PMs with their bogus “directorships” etc offered by corporations for influence and state access. They are all dirty top to bottom. The rock they hide under needs lifting up and daylight allowed in.

b) Tie the economic decline and ‘cost of living crisis’ to this rank corruption pointing out that it is the normal working person who gets to pay for tax breaks for millionaires, dodgy offshore wealth shenanigans, non-doms, tax haven scams etc. We all get to pay for this oligarch money-laundering and criminality in homelessness, foodbanks, a failing NHS, lost productivity and opportunity, potholes, shit transport and every other facet of ‘austerity’. Side with the trade union movement in this fight and explain they are merely standing against Tory corruption and trough-feeding.

c) Challenge the broken undemocratic electoral system and ask why a party who represent so few are in a position of absolute power so much of the time. Tie things like the Elections Bill to its US Republican voter suppression equivalents. Explain that the Tory Party is now a far-right Trump party no matter who leads it.

I don’t think you need more than that to win. I didn’t even mention Brexit!

To take just one of those points, the NHS, it was a question raised by a Doctor on Any Questions with Layla Moran on the panel. The question was about the lack of Care provision that prevented patients being discharged and causes the backlog that causes ambulances waiting at hospital and not being able to respond to emergency calls.

The non Tories pointed to cuts, but none of them grabbed hold of the central point about lack of Care or pointed out that Care was another one of those oven ready plans the Tories had ready to go years ago.

So yes, those obvious criticisms of the Tories are there, but none of the other parties has a coherent plan do anything different, and what’s more, never will have.

Slagging off the Tories is easy because they are so corrupt and venal, but an alternative has to have more than words. It has to have a clear economic plan to pay for an alternative. An alternative that sends government spending to public services and not the off shore billionaires and criminals you mention is the only way forward, otherwise nothing substantial will change regardless of who wins the next GE

 

[Le Baron]

The basic problem is that people claim expertise or cite other sources. That’s fine as far as it goes. I am not about to study the source material in depth so have no idea whether they are interpreting it correctly.

Calling others out for lack of expertise etc is just rude, I dare say there are many people who are very clever but just like the banter & have a laugh with it all.

I have a fair few friends who are far smarter than me, I know their bonafides unlike some random bloke on here who has all the answers.

I always wonder why such great minds waste so much time on here talking to relative morons like me.

Is this in reference to me? On a forum it's impossible to hold up 'credentials', though I assure you I have them - both research and teaching ones. I also spent a lot of time learning a lot of nonsense when I was at university, since I was unlucky enough to be there when monetarist thought was extremely dominant. It has taken me a long time to undo the damage, but I worked for it. I emptied my glass and started again because the facts didn't fit. Other people got there first and I'm happy about that. Plenty of us who knew monetarist claptrap wasn't right and worked to try and undo it with coherent theory have been blessed that the internet allowed people to share research that led to this.

I was sceptical about some points, but I didn't puff out my chest and say "what makes you right?!' I went and read from the source I put aside what I knew and paid attention. Since MMT/post-Keynesian economics has become a buzzword in the last two years or so people tend to think it is some new fly-by-night thing, but it is the result of decades of work. Which has antecedent theory stretching back over 100+ years. Several key understandings have locked a lot of things into place. Some is just rediscovery.

I am no fan of Thatcherism/Reganomics/Hayek/Walters etc and as stated previously I like some elements of MMT but ultimately just see myself as just a good old fashioned Keynesian. Regarding the zealot thing you and your (spelt correctly) new chum:

1. go on a bit

2. act like PF is full of fans of neoliberalism (which it evidently isn’t)

3. treat everybody else like idiots

All joking aside and this a genuine question, what does your newly adopted home of the Green Party say about MMT? Oh and stop burning those effin tyres.

That's fine, but MMT is completely in line with Keynes's observations (Keynes was a good student of Marx's work and so adopted the theory of effective demand from him, it's a forward momentum). When you say "just an good old fashioned Keynesian", it really should refer to what Keyenes says, not how his position was reinterpreted through the 50s to 70s as a synthesis of a bit of him and neo-classical economics. That's what people are usually referring to when they say "Keynesianism". Anyone in agreement with Keynes can't fail to find MMT both compelling and shockingly coherent in its clarity. Over the years it has made me go back and actually read Keynes more thoroughly.

On the point of "act like PF is full of fans of neoliberalism", the issue is this: it is often unwittingly being in line with monetarist cant (since it is so embedded in public discourse by now) and then when this is pointed out/explained, the person gets annoyed and digs their heels in further. Against their own best interest so often. Causes frustration. Also me being painted out as some crazed 'far left' person when discussing the functioning of monetary (capitalist) economies. It can be trying.

I don't find people here to be 'idiots'. No-one likes to be told they are in error, or to feel that what they thought for so long just evaporates under force of logic and matters of fact. I felt that about economics I had understood for a long time. It takes some courage and humility to be corrected and to learn new things.

 

[Spraggons Den]

No-one likes to be told they are in error, or to feel that what they thought for so long just evaporates under force of logic and matters of fact. I felt that about economics I had understood for a long time. It takes some courage and humility to be corrected and to learn new things.

Liz Truss mentioned the same on last night's TV debate. From the Guardian:

Sunak turned on Truss, asking her: “You’ve been both a Liberal Democrat and a remainer: I’m just wondering which one of those you regretted most?” The foreign secretary said she wasn’t born in a Conservative home, and had been on a political “journey”.

Esteemed company indeed.

 

[Brian]

You’re constantly calling people out for having an opinion without having the required expertise. You’re doing it in this very post. It’s your chief contribution to the forum, other than telling LP12 owners it’s only a record player.

To be fair to woody, and I’ve owned the LP12/Ittok/MC30s, it is a record player.

 

[Woodface]

Is this in reference to me? On a forum it's impossible to hold up 'credentials', though I assure you I have them - both research and teaching ones. I also spent a lot of time learning a lot of nonsense when I was at university, since I was unlucky enough to be there when monetarist thought was extremely dominant. It has taken me a long time to undo the damage, but I worked for it. I emptied my glass and started again because the facts didn't fit. Other people got their first and I'm happy about that. Plenty of us who knew monetarist claptrap wasn't right and worked to try and undo it with coherent theory have been blessed that the internet allowed people to share research that led to this.

I was sceptical about some points, but I didn't puff out my chest and say "what makes you right?!' I went and read from the source I put aside what I knew and paid attention. Since MMT/post-Keynesian economics has become a buzzword in the last two years or so people tend to think it is some new fly-by-night thing, but it is the result of decades of work. Which has antecedent theory stretching back over 100+ years. Several key understandings have locked a lot of things into place. Some is just rediscovery.



That's fine, but MMT is completely in line with Keynes's observations (Keynes was a good student of Marx's work and so adopted the theory of effective demand from him, it's a forward momentum). When you say "just an good old fashioned Keynesian", it really should refer to what Keyenes says, not how his position was reinterpreted through the 50s to 70s as a synthesis of a bit of him and neo-classical economics. That's what people are usually referring to when they say "Keynesianism". Anyone in agreement with Keynes can't fail to find MMT both compelling and shockingly coherent in its clarity. Over the years it has made me go back and actually read Keynes more thoroughly.

On the point of "act like PF is full of fans of neoliberalism", the issue is this: it is often unwittingly being in line with monetarist cant (since it is so embedded in public discourse by now) and then when this is pointed out/explained, the person gets annoyed and digs their heels in further. Against their own best interest so often. Causes frustration. Also me being painted out as some crazed 'far left' person when discussing the functioning of monetary (capitalist) economies. It can be trying.

I don't find people here to be 'idiots'. No-one likes to be told they are in error, or to feel that what they thought for so long just evaporates under force of logic and matters of fact. I felt that about economics I had understood for a long time. It takes some courage and humility to be corrected and to learn new things.

It was more of a general point but you do fall into that category. I am sure you are correct but I have an intense dislike of ‘assumptions of idiocy’ that seem to occur whenever there is a disagreement.

I hold no candle for Rachel Reeves, I do find it weird that the BoE would employ someone who doesn’t understand economics though. Politics often requires a certain line to be held or certain things to be said in order to keep the city on side. I honestly don’t see an alternative to this if a party wants to be elected & do some good.

 

[ks.234]

It was more of a general point but you do fall into that category. I am sure you are correct but I have an intense dislike of ‘assumptions of idiocy’ that seem to occur whenever there is a disagreement.

I hold no candle for Rachel Reeves, I do find it weird that the BoE would employ someone who doesn’t understand economics though. Politics often requires a certain line to be held or certain things to be said in order to keep the city on side. I honestly don’t see an alternative to this if a party wants to be elected & do some good.

TINA again. TINA is the mantra that keeps the current flawed economic ideology in place. The ideology is flawed, even on it’s own terms and the fact that Labour had adopted it is part of the problem. There is an alternative if you look for it.

 

[paulfromcamden]

It was more of a general point but you do fall into that category. I am sure you are correct but I have an intense dislike of ‘assumptions of idiocy’ that seem to occur whenever there is a disagreement.

Pretty much how I feel. I'm a little uncomfortable with anyone who is absolutely certain of their view - and that means there's generally no point debating it. They know they're right. So I just keep my mouth shut.

 

[Spraggons Den]

TINA again. TINA is the mantra that keeps the current flawed economic ideology in place. The ideology is flawed, even on it’s own terms and the fact that Labour had adopted it is part of the problem. There is an alternative if you look for it.

Do you know of any instances where a Government or respected economic institution such as the OECD has adopted full-fat MMT?

 

[ks.234]

Do you know of any instances where a Government or respected economic institution such as the OECD has adopted full-fat MMT?

No. There is no such thing as full fat MMT

 

[Le Baron]

Liz Truss mentioned the same on last night's TV debate. From the Guardian:

Sunak turned on Truss, asking her: “You’ve been both a Liberal Democrat and a remainer: I’m just wondering which one of those you regretted most?” The foreign secretary said she wasn’t born in a Conservative home, and had been on a political “journey”.

Esteemed company indeed.

Don't get confused though, my political values haven't altered. Not that this was anything to do with anything I said anyway.

Pretty much how I feel. I'm a little uncomfortable with anyone who is absolutely certain of their view - and that means there's generally no point debating it. They know they're right. So I just keep my mouth shut.

There is always doubt. Doubting is why I didn't just sit there and give up when 'there is no alternative' and 'end of history' economics was piled on everyone's head. The door is always open for doubt and for debate. However, the latter doesn't occur when people encounter something they simply don't care for according to already-held views, or find suspicious or which undermines comfortable falsehoods, and then start putting up instant resistance...just because.

Do you debate with your dentist on points of dentistry? If in doubt I tend to ask what she's doing, how and what for. Sometimes she explains it and I listen. Most of the time I trust her judgement, because she seems to know what she's doing after all this time. One of the problems with economic discussion, and certainly politics, is because it lives in public discourse in a generalised fashion it is assumed it is just 'common-sense' stuff - it's supply and demand innit?! - and everyone is an expert by dint of reading the papers and to have followed public discourse for a while.

 

[Le Baron]

Do you know of any instances where a Government or respected economic institution such as the OECD has adopted full-fat MMT?

This is unfortunately a non-question (and one with a motive). Firstly because MMT describes normal operations in a monetarist economy. 'Respected economic institutions' are not economies nor are they governments implementing policy in line with anything. The OECD doesn't implement monetary and fiscal operations for, say, the UK. and even if it did for some sort of strange reason, all the same facts about how the system operates would be the same. Same currency issue power, same facts about taxation, same facts about transfer payments, same facts about how loans work, same facts about banking operations, same facts about employment. What is your actual question?

That said, there is indeed a complete department based upon MMT at the Levy Institute Bard College, and University of Missouri Kansas City, where many of these ideas were shaped. Also Melbourne University. And as it has much in common with previous thought in the post-Keynes tradition, it's actually everywhere in parts.

 

[ks.234]

Pretty much how I feel. I'm a little uncomfortable with anyone who is absolutely certain of their view - and that means there's generally no point debating it. They know they're right. So I just keep my mouth shut.

Depends what you mean by ‘absolutely certain’. You can be ‘absolutely certain’ as a matter of faith, or reason. Which is why it is futile arguing against a certainty based on faith with an argument from reason. You can however challenge a reasoned certainty with reason. There absolutely is a point in debating a view in order to test it.

As I see it we already have an economic ideology that is baked in hard precisely because it is faith based. It starts in a very dogmatic belief that is sustained by faith, faith in the market, we don’t understand how this market works, so let others run as if they do.

So please do ask questions of reason, but also ask some questions about the faith.