I know we’re a way out from full beans election campaigning but this sort of vacillating really isn’t a great look: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67528894?s=09 Whoever the ‘senior source’ is they deserve sacking for briefing that fiscal rules are more important than policy. It’s time to stop this defensive style of only responding to whatever provocations or bait the Tories dangle and start setting out a clear Labour vision for government. Part of that is getting all the off the record briefers on message or out of the door. If the idea grows that regardless of the manifesto commitments the only thing on offer is Tory lite turnout at the election will be atrocious and a hung Parliament could be a real possibility.
Time for the Tories to depart . No doubt. But fugg me the options are lousy . Maybe the Labour crowd will get in . If they stop fighting . Jones Sarkar et Al will be doing their utmost to remain in opposition . Kerching!! Because should Labour get in power and everything becomes the same as it was ever was or the new boss is the same as the old one then their cash cow is over .
I can understand why Labour does this, to try to protect itself from criticism that it will be irresponsible in Government (which you’d think would be a low bar given the lack of fiscal responsibility shown by the current one). On issues of greatest contention, Labour tries to remain in the Tory shadow and let the Tories lose the election of their own accord. The polls show this clearly works. It’s just that it will work until it doesn’t, until issues emerge that demand new thinking or the Tories find the right wedge issue. Then it could fall apart spectacularly if Labour doesn’t have the courage to present a simple, coherent offer. Labour does have lots of policy, but few care about the detail. Like you say, it’s about vision.
We're getting to the point where we will be voting for the least worse option, rather than the best option to lead us going forward.
While I can see the superficial ammo this provides to the Tories and SNP, I don't really have a fuss with it. There's a clear difference between opposing the cap being removed but once that's done being realistic about the benefits of re-imposing it. It's essentially a populist policy anyway. Raised very little for the Treasury, and banks easily got around by massively inflating basic salaries instead, so it's all about optics. ie. the worst kind of politicking. Labour's going to have their plans forensically analysed over the coming months and so I think if they're going to spend political capital on populist policies I'd rather they went for ones that might actually inspire people to vote for them. The Tories are going to whip up this sort of thing every couple of weeks from here on in - wedge issues all over the place - and voters who want to see the back of them need to not take the bait in my view.
Starmer and Labour are akin to Blair's champagne socialists. Scared to cap bankers bonuses which are more often than not obscene and undeserved and given even when the public had to bail.them.out. So much for trying to make a fairer and more equitable society. This reluctance to tackle the growing imbalance between shopfloor and executive pay is appalling. Why the fear ?
The conundrum is, while capping bonuses is popular, Labour standing on that sort of platform is not. The population has been made utterly dizzy about Labour until it will criticise it as losing touch with the working class, if it doesn’t and both jealous and fiscally incompetent if it does. The reason for this is clear. The class that receives bonuses want to keep them and Labour is its only real threat. It therefore employs its press and opinions formers to neuter Labour, whatever it says. The only possible response in the run up to the election is to shadow the conservatives so the election is fought on the Tory record and competence. Then they can get in power and who knows what Sir Keir will do? It’s not like he’s stuck to his word before. Labour could well bring in lots of measures in Government, but it cannot get a fair hearing on their merits in opposition. Democracy isn’t served, but then it doesn’t have a hope with our venal media.
At last! Sir Kid Starver announces a round of policies every single one of us underclass minimum wage kiddies can get behind! NO increase in corporation tax! NO limit on bankers' bonuses! Hurrah for Sir Keith and the party of the working class proletariat!
I think '97 & 2010 you had a young enthusiastic opposition with new fresh ideas, both who were following previous 13 to 18 year governments, both when the country needed that fresh energetic and dynamic approach. '79 Thatcher had the same effect, but after a decade of failed Labour and Torie governments. As much as we need a change today, we're lacking that Fresh, Energetic and Dynamic umph that we all need and want. We all know that Labour will get in, not because they are great or will do anything wonderful, but because they aren't the Tories.
The Tories had no new ideas in 2010, simply said very little and allowed Labour to lose it. They then went on to do a whole load of things (like its reorganisation of the NHS, austerity inc the bedroom tax) that were not in its manifesto. It’s a bit rich to call that ‘fresh’ and then criticise Labour for taking that same approach now. However anything will seem fresh up against the last fourteen years of chaos, ineptitude and self-serving we have seen, not least of all a respect for the UK’s institutions and government not based on trying to divide the electorate through culture wars.
Twitter/X thread from someone answering if Labour are ‘Tory Lite.’ Concludes they are not, even if its programme must largely focus on repairing Tory damage to democracy, accountability, the economy and the disarray in public services from the NHS to border control. https://x.com/bentonheath53/status/1754445162002952667?s=46&t=oqOMSJXE_g7J5C7kNPG9LA
Not really. The central point is that simply attempting to restore what has been lost in 14 years is a radical programme in itself now. Fair enough for not visiting Twitter/X though. It’s a shocking place now.
Shameful volte face on an issue which will cost trillions to the country through food loss, severe weather events, sea level rise health issues and increase in all manner of disease. You can and nations will have to move to green economies. Not just in thought and lip service but actual deed. It's the logical and rational thing to do. It will create jobs and ameliorate some of rhe damage. Bit as with those desperate to be in power as most MPs are rather than being politicians of conviction the strategists have thrown the Green component of the manifesto out and watered it down. Purely because of the fear that the Tories whose own record under Sunak and the clowns before him on the environment has been appalling will use it to try and portray it as being too costly. The costs of climate change will Dwarf this. They should be pointing out the disaster that the Tories have been for nature and people. And unlike the jellyfish Keir Blair is becoming have rhe courage of their convictions. In this case it's not dogmatic either. It is rhe logical, rational and sensible solution. We cannot expect the economic models of the need for continual growth, continual annual profit rises to carry on given the environmental impact these entail and the effects they have socially. We need this restrained socially and environmentally responsible capitalism. And across the globe.
I think the point is that Labour are not rolling back on the commitment to a green economy. They are just not going to make a commitment to spend £28bn each and every year, for a decade, as they said they would 2+ years ago at their conference. That is actually quite sensible as they do not know what the economic situation is going to be when they take power, let alone what it will look like in 10 years time. The mistake was putting a figure on it in the first place. It now looks like they are less committed to renewables than they were when I don't think that is the case. In fact they had not set out where the money was going to be spent so it's not as though specific projects are going to be cut as a result! As I said earlier, it's been handled very badly by Labour imho.
Completely agree, at the moment it's coming across as what labour aren't going to do rather than what they are going to do. The clearest they have been so far was in an email sent to Labour Party members last night actually putting down a plan of action.
As I said they are just saying things to get elected. No conviction to believe in what they had pledged. They could have explained why rhe cost. What the benefits ate and the implications of scaling back. Zero vision. Decades of Lab-Con has seen the country decline. It's a outdated system. We would better off with genuine experts, logicians and futurists in charge unfettered by dogma , nepotism, favouritism. Indeed I expect AI can do a far better job than the bloated Hpuse of Liars. The latest peer appointments another Needless drain on rhe taxpayer are announced. And yet again it's about handing out favours to chums and donors. Zero merit required. It desperately needs abolishing.
At this point in the election cycle in 1997, the same criticisms were being levelled at Blair - that he was just the "not the Tory" candidate and they they didn't have any policies. The acid test for Starmer will be when the gun is fired for the election campaign proper and the manifesto. Obviously he's not as good a communicator/as charismatic as Blair (I never personally warmed to him as I found him insincere but clearly others did!) but at the moment it's wise not to interrupt your enemy when they're making mistake after mistake.
Oh really? Tbf I was only five when Blair got in! I agree about not interrupting an enemy when they are making mistakes however with this being an election year you would imagine Starmer would start paying down ideas.
It's still early days. Outside of the bubble few people are engaged with politics and the risk of Labour announcing policies now if is they're popular they'll be nicked and if they bomb they'll be used as a stick to beat them with. I do think the u-turn attack line is starting to cut through though.
The other problem Labour have is how it can continue to appeal to Muslim voters whilst not appearing (or being) antisemitic. The appalling statement from their candidate in Rochdale shows how easily it can blow up. I think it could cause a some upsets in a few constituencies where Muslim or Jewish voters are key.
This is not actually the case, though, is it. Labour still has a green plan, it's just not committed to spending £28bn a year. Unfortunately, Labour is in a near-impossible position. It's an easy attack line for those on the right who want to cast net zero as some sort of unnecessary and unaffordable fairytale because they are either compromised, have self-interest at heart or are just too thick to understand. The money isn't there, because the Tories have ransacked the economy. But that line doesn't punch through because we have a media that caters to the least bright and least analytical and the words 'U-turn' are catnip for lazy journalists. But there is still a plan to invest in green tech industries and renewables. Labour plans to double the Government's spending on insulation and clean heating. There is a plan for a windfall tax on oil and gas companies, which would raise about 2bn a year. So there is a vision. It's just not the vision those of us who had hoped for an immediate impact with a green revolution wanted. Unfortunately, a whole bunch of reasons (a weak economy, a thicko media looking for an easy way to attack Labour) means that the vision has had to be watered down. Attacking Labour for that, rather than the people who actually wasted the money and trashed the economy, is an easy trap set by the Tories. It's far more damaging to repeat the rhetoric of 'they're all the same' and 'there's no plan' because they are just words stolen from the mouths of Tory HQ. It's harder and it's more boring, but reading the small print rather than just the headlines usually gives a more nuanced, and slightly more encouraging, picture.
The candidate for Labour in Rochdale has been suspended and all Labour support withdrawn. It means Labour no longer has a candidate. It’s the right thing to do and you hope this hopeless ****** doesn’t get in by default. It leaves the unpleasant possibility that Reform could win the seat, giving them a launchpad and further dividing the town. Presumably the Lib Dems must have a chance, that is, if people have forgotten about Cyril Smith by now.
George Galloway is the new favourite to win the Rochdale seat apparently. Another bo11ock dropped by Starmer Chameleon
