The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[Demitri_C]

12 hours ago, limpid said:

Who will you be standing for?

Ive already said im voting lib dems

[limpid]

17 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Ive already said im voting lib dems

I think you have missed my point. If you are worried that a crap government will be replaced by a mediocre one, why not stand and be a better alternative. You can stand as LD or anything else.

Participatory democracy requires people to participate.

Personally I believe that even if true, mediocre is far preferable to crap.

[Demitri_C]

20 minutes ago, limpid said:

I think you have missed my point. If you are worried that a crap government will be replaced by a mediocre one, why not stand and be a better alternative. You can stand as LD or anything else.

Participatory democracy requires people to participate.

Personally I believe that even if true, mediocre is far preferable to crap.

Can i count on your vote if i run?

[snowychap]

17 hours ago, Dodgyknees said:

Absolutely correct. Even if this leaves a bad taste in my mouth, Labour are doing the right thing. 

For some, they may be.

I would say that Starmer's 'positioning' has lost him plenty of potential, existing and former Labour voters. It may work out, because the Tories are so awful, that Labour still win and get a reasonable majority but relying upon the continued incompetence of the other side and difficult economic circumstances for that is a piss poor strategy (one of those two changing can alter the tide). It also suggests a grim, empty, windblown political future should the current Labour party become the next government. I've little doubt that it would be better than the Tories but don't expect me to celebrate it if it's still utter shit but not just quite as shit as the present.

 

[snowychap]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

when it comes to election time people (voters) will not like the truth

They're not going to get the truth from Starmer. They'll get the same level of truth that accompanied his pledges when he sought election as Labour leader.

 

Edited July 19, 2023 by snowychap

[blandy]

10 minutes ago, snowychap said:

They're not going to get the truth from Starmer. They'll get the same level of truth that accompanied his pledges when he sought election as Labour leader.

Possibly.

Here's why I think what I said - assuming I'm right, which is a big assumption, I know, but anyway, So he's sat down in his chair and Corbyn has just resigned as leader. Starmer wants to be the next leader. So he says things which are probably a mix of what he believed at the time and what he felt he needed to say to win enough votes to become leader, but which he wasn't that bothered about.

He wins the leadership. Labour does several things as a party. It investigates why it lost in 2019. A big part of that, or 4 big parts I guess are voter antipathy to Corbyn, a mess of a Brexit message and (concocted or real, delete as per personal preference) anti-semitism, and finally a manifesto that looked non-credible to a lot of voters - too many promises, too much sense of wahey! open the spending taps!

And then there was the external reasons they lost - the simple Get Brexit done message from Johnson.

So this is where the long term thing comes in. He has that information and he plots out the things that need to be done to get Labour elected in 2024. He's done several of them already - Distance himself from Corbyn, get the EHRC to close down their investigation into anti-semitism, stop banging on about Brexit and remain, send the financially responsible message over and over again, appear and be "grown up and competent" in parliament.

The things still to do are an election manifesto and also appear to be a government in waiting to the public.

To my way of thinking, it's just a bunch of logical steps, a process that he's clearly following. This post isn't about my views of Labour, or Starmer or Labour policy, it's just about what I perceive they/he are doing strategically.

I think that he's going to find it hard to do the "Government in waiting" and manifesto things. There's little public recognition of who the Labour shadow cabinet are (I've little idea personally), or whether they're any good, and as loads of posters have said what's apparently the gist of an offering is pretty uninspiring and feeble. And the difficulty is that the country is in such a state that all the massive changes needed and hoped for are going to take a long time and be difficult to achieve.

I don't want to wait 18 months for an operation, I don't want to wait 2 weeks to get a GP appointment, I want the potholes fixed, I want to be able to afford my rent/mortgage, I want to not have to rely on foodbanks and warmbanks in winter, I want to be able to travel on affordable trains that run on time and don't keep getting cancelled, I don't want jobbies in the sea and rivers, I want decent education for the kids and I don't want them to be burdened with a lifetime of debt if they go to Uni....and on and on it goes. That's a small list not of things that need to be improved, but things that are so broken they don't work and need fixing, before they can even start on improving the country  - like before I can improve my car, I first need to get it through an MoT because it's currently a MoT failure not fit to be on the road. Only then can I start putting in a radio and roof rack and seat covers and alloy wheels...

So I think Starmer is going to be offering to get the car through an MoT test, but not offering alloy wheels and a posh stereo, and people will slag him off for that. Other people will say "yeah, I mean I guess we need to pass the MoT, but it's all very dull and uninspiring and not what he promised 5 years ago"

[markavfc40]

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

So why we not excluding thw obvious in this scenario COVID which was much worse than the credit crunch? 

Yes they wasted money paying their mates will all know this but a huge chunk of the debt muat have gone on furlough

 

Furlough cost 70 billion. Test and trace 30 billion. Billions wasted on PPE to companies of Tory MP's friends, family, donors that had never been in the PPE business. 5 billion wasted on PPE either not fit for purpose or defective. 6 billion lost due to fraud.

There is no doubt that covid has had an impact on the Tories having increased debt. It is a fraction of the 1.1 trillion they have added to national debt though. I wouldn't actually have an issue with the massive increase in debt if they'd actually improved things but they have done the opposite. Decimated public services, given those already with the least a good kicking, made everybody's lot (bar the very richest amongst us) worse and made us a divided nation. 

Edited July 19, 2023 by markavfc40

[Demitri_C]

1 minute ago, markavfc40 said:

Furlough cost 70 billion. Test and trace 30 billion. Billions wasted on PPE to companies of Tory MP's friends, family, donors that had never been in the PPE business. 5 billion wasted on PPE either not fit for purpose or defective. 6 billion lost due to fraud.

There is no doubt that covid has had an impact on the Tories having increased debt. It is a fraction of the 1.1 trillion they have added to national debt though. I wouldn't actually have an issue with the massive increase in debt if they'd actually improved things but they have done the opposite. Decimated public services, given those already with the least a good kicking, made everybody's lot (bar the very richest amongst us) worse and made us a divided nation. 

Thanks for providing the figures mark.

The PPE was complete and utter disaster and we know the scandal of that 30 billion should be investigated and people should be thrown in prison for the fraud.  But putting that aside for a minute the 70 billion is a huge amount of money. That would damage any economy 

Id rather that was spent protecting peoples jobs and adding yo the national debt that mass employment and people couldnt pay their bills. Alot to criticise the tories for but nit the debt form covid as that was global issue. 

I agree with yous last paragraph mark btw also !

My criticism for labour is because i just dont think alot of people accept any form of criticism of them. 

[snowychap]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

alloy wheels and a posh stereo, and people will slag him off for that

Would you care to list out some of the policies that you believe come under this heading, please?

You've taken time to list some of the things that you think are the necessary to make the car roadworthy but not spelt out what you think are in the above category.

Just so I'm clear as to the types of things that are your alloy wheels and posh stereo, could you give me a couple of examples otherwise I'm left thinking that it's every policy that Starmer et al. have dropped/shifted on since his election as Labour leader.

13 minutes ago, blandy said:

This post isn't about my views of Labour, or Starmer or Labour policy, it's just about what I perceive they/he are doing strategically.

And yet at least the last two paragraphs are.

[Wainy316]

7 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Thanks for providing the figures mark.

The PPE was complete and utter disaster and we know the scandal of that 30 billion should be investigated and people should be thrown in prison for the fraud.  But putting that aside for a minute the 70 billion is a huge amount of money. That would damage any economy 

Id rather that was spent protecting peoples jobs and adding yo the national debt that mass employment and people couldnt pay their bills. Alot to criticise the tories for but nit the debt form covid as that was global issue. 

I agree with yous last paragraph mark btw also !

My criticism for labour is because i just dont think alot of people accept any form of criticism of them. 

Do bear in mind most of our European neighbours locked down longer and harder than we did and nearly all came out of Covid in much less of a mess than the UK is in.

[Jareth]

From the Labour leadership debacle the only thing we know for certain about Starmer is that he'll say and do what is necessary to gain power. That's not necessarily now a criticism. In that leadership campaign he caveated everything he'd spoken about by saying out loud (for about 10 seconds) that Labour can only achieve these things IF it gets into power. This was deceptive IMHO, and it absolutely appears he's playing the same trick now. Everything he is saying now that is ruffling folks up the wrong way (me included) I believe is subject to 2 caveats which he will use to justify a change of position later. 1 - when UK finances allow, and 2) Judge us on what we did last time we were in power. Inflation is coming down now, just today, and by the time of the election I think they'll be saying UK finances now do allow certain policies. And anything that they do in the future that resembles New Labour (not the illegal war of course, or maybe!) they can say this was always their plan. Personally I don't trust the guy, and he's also incapable of inspiring anything or anyone, but I would put money on Labour looking a truer shade of red, this time next year. All said through gritted teeth of course. 

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Would you care to list out some of the policies that you believe come under this heading, please?

Sure. And again, this is not my personal choice, but what I think Starmer sees as this category - things he's said or it's reported Labour is keen on, but which he feels are lower down the list - so that is likely to be stuff like the already discussed 2 child benefit limit, plus stuff like nationalising Water and other utility type industries, or UBI, or free broadband for everyone. I think they're going to try and work out a list of top priorities like the NHS, and then have a list of "stuff which won't cost much, but we can change" - Abolish the House of Lords, play nice with the EU, give more power to local regions and local government to make their own decisions

9 minutes ago, snowychap said:

And yet at least the last two paragraphs are.

They're not intended to be, snowy - they're hypothetical examples of how I percieve the general public/voters will or might react. They are not my personal views of Labour policies or how well or badly I think Labour is performing or what I want them to do or not do.

Personally I want PR, I want much more stuff on Green issues, I want much more regulation of finance and I want the tax system changed and made fairer and re-balanced around polluter pays, I want stuff about food standards and about pesticides and farming, I want more energy efficiency measures...a whole bunch of stuff, but it kind of is irrelevant, because "I personally want whoever is government to do X" isn't really the main subject of this thread. Labour isn't (mostly) saying or doing the things I want, and it isn't the government anyway.

[delboy54]

I am not sure about Starmer, but I get the feeling that Labour are being very careful not to score an own goal before the next GE, as well as not announcing any new radical policies as they could be hijacked by the Tories.

Hopefully nearer the GE Labours plans and policies under Starmer will be clearer.

It's just that I don't see Starmer as a person to get enthusiastic about anything, he seems just a bit dull and uninspiring to me. There is so much to repair that has been ruined over the last decade (or two) in our Country, I am not even sure that any of the political parties know where to start to be honest

[limpid]

2 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Can i count on your vote if i run?

If it's a centrist and sensible platform, yes. But you might have to move and employ a proof reader

[snowychap]

38 minutes ago, blandy said:

Sure. And again, this is not my personal choice, but what I think Starmer sees as this category - things he's said or it's reported Labour is keen on, but which he feels are lower down the list - so that is likely to be stuff like the already discussed 2 child benefit limit, plus stuff like nationalising Water and other utility type industries, or UBI, or free broadband for everyone.

UBI or 'free broadband for everyone' were not, as far as I'm aware, pledges that Starmer made in order to bcome/when he became Labour leader. They were, however, a couple of policy ideas about which you, personally, havebeen very critical.

Mashing those up with other things seriously undermines your claim to be merely talking about Labour strategy in some objective way or discussing 'examples of how [you] perceive the general public/voters will or might react'.

The 2 child benefit cap limit as an example of what you claim is classed by the general public (see above) as alloys or a posh stereo counts me out of this whoever may be making this classification.

On this specifc policy, my view is that a Labour party that supports (saying that they would not change it or scrap it is supporting it as it says that they would keep it and its consequences in place) a policy that fellow shadow cabinet members have called heinous, that has failed in its claimed objectives, that even the former Tory DWP minister Lord Fraud called vicious and has pushed thousands of households in to poverty (and will probably continue to do) so its leader and Shadow Chancellor can avoid the nonsense questions about 'funding' is a disgrace. Dropping that pledge makes me think Starmer is an  utter word removed.

 

Edited July 19, 2023 by snowychap

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, snowychap said:

UBI or 'free broadband for everyone' were not, as far as I'm aware, pledges that Starmer made in order to bcome/when he became Labour leader. They were, however, a couple of policy ideas about which you, personally, have been very critical.

I think they're things that were in the last manifesto, and/or which are popular with the more left wing sector. I didn't go check Starmer's 10 pledges  - I kind of didn't feel the need to, because I felt (perhaps wrongly) that you wanted stuff that wasn't on that list, because you wrote this:

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

otherwise I'm left thinking that it's every policy that Starmer et al. have dropped/shifted on since his election as Labour leader.

Essentially I'm saying that there is or will be a list of things that Union leaders, Labour members, Voters, Labour MPs would love to bring in that Starmer will not promise to do. I'm suggesting that the reason he will give is that the country is so broken that "these things are lovely, but we can't do them right away because these other things are higher priority". And I'm suggesting that a lot of people will not like that. That's all. Other views are welcome and as valid as mine. Whether I personally like nationalising water, or UBI doesn't undermine that view. I'm not a Labour supporter or member. I'll vote for whoever is least unlikely to beat the Tory where I live. Labour can and will do what it wants, and I'll try to understand why it is doing those things and post about that.

[snowychap]

49 minutes ago, blandy said:

I didn't go check Starmer's 10 pledges  - I kind of didn't feel the need to, because I felt (perhaps wrongly) that you wanted stuff that wasn't on that list, because you wrote this:

Given that I wrote:

2 hours ago, snowychap said:

They're not going to get the truth from Starmer. They'll get the same level of truth that accompanied his pledges when he sought election as Labour leader.

 

And you wrote:

2 hours ago, blandy said:

So he's sat down in his chair and Corbyn has just resigned as leader. Starmer wants to be the next leader. So he says things which are probably a mix of what he believed at the time and what he felt he needed to say to win enough votes to become leader, but which he wasn't that bothered about.

 I think it's safe to assume that we were both talking about pledges and policies which Starmer himself put forward in order to get elected as Labour leader rather than stretching for a couple of policies from previous Labour election manifestos about which you have done little to hide your clear disdain and which may well have continued to be policy until he became leader and ditched them (if indeed he did - I don't know) since it would probably have been difficult for him to ditch them before he became leader and he didn't stand on them as pledges for his leadership bid.

 

54 minutes ago, blandy said:

Essentially I'm saying that there is or will be a list of things that Union leaders, Labour members, Voters, Labour MPs would love to bring in that Starmer will not promise to do.

Hypothetical promises to be made or not in the future and whether they are or aren't taken up are vastly different to actual promises and pledges made in the past which are dropped especially given that the original point made was a criticism of the level of truth that accompanied those pledges.

 

[blandy]

15 minutes ago, snowychap said:

2 hours ago, blandy said:

 

 I think it's safe to assume that we were both talking about pledges and policies which Starmer himself put forward

it isn't safe to assume that because, as I've written, that's not what I was talking about. You were. Fine. And your point is a valid view, I don't disagree - he's clearly dropped a load of the listed ones. I thought you'd asked what other policies he would also drop/de-prioritise that were not on the list (as you'd already covered them). Talking at cross purposes, I guess.

[Chindie]

That'll be stinging for weeks, ooft.

[Genie]

More pressure on Labour to be less Tory