Reply With QuoteNot your words. Where did you lift that from without attribution?Originally Posted by life on mars
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
What is Keir Starmer up to on the £28bn?
It looked as if the Labour leadership was planning an orderly retreat from the £28bn-a-year figure for its green investment plan, but it looks more and more as if it intends to muddle through with no commitment to borrow that much but without disowning the figure.
The latest form of words was deployed by Jonathan Reynolds, the shadow business secretary, who downgraded the figure to an “ambition” on the Today programme this morning.
I understand that he wants to get rid of it, as does Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, Pat McFadden, the shadow cabinet minister running the election campaign, and Morgan McSweeney, Starmer’s long-time adviser who is the top official on the election campaign team.
Yet the figure survives, because Ed Miliband, the shadow energy secretary, fights so fiercely to keep it as a symbol of Labour standing for something. And Starmer appears unable to make up his mind between his warring subordinates.
Curiouser and curiouser.
Not your words. Where did you lift that from without attribution?
Labour don't have to commit to anything, they are going to walk the next election because the Tories have made such a mess of everything.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/...tion_main.html
Why did you feel it was necessary to even come out with such a statement, and does it make any difference to what the content post is about FGS
It's getting harder and harder to tell Labour apart from the Conservatives every day.
When the Tories announced in October that the bankers bonus would be scrapped, Labour said this:
Darren Jones, Labour's shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said the decision "tells you everything you need to know" about the priorities of the government.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-67206997
Now they say they support it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68145720
Apart from the general benefits of a bit of a change and some of the rhetoric on a few things is there any real difference at all between Labour and Tories?
I totally agree.
That's because there is no difference, except for a few superficial distractions.
It’s always been that way sadly
I don't think there's likely to be much change in policies. Labour may end up being less overtly corrupt and may apologise when they stick the knife in. That's probably enough for many people.
Probably for a similar reason that you felt the need to come out with your statement. If LOM has decided to anonymously post some pundit's comment I would like to know who the pundit is.
It doesn't change the comment but it does provide some additional context - and I like to know that context. Sometimes it sheds light.
I am also annoyed (along with several other regular posters) when a poster keeps passing off someone else's words and opinions as their own. It was an epidemic on *****' board. I would rather it doesn't become accepted here.
If that is alright with you?
Why on earth would you become annoyed when it’s irrelevant, it’s a football message-board not a psychology class where everything has to be referenced.
I’m sorry but all opinions are welcome regardless of its source content.
I expect marginal differences of policy and behaviour.
But a slight improvement in some areas (in others there will be no change at all) is better than more of the same.
For some people that slight improvement may be life changing. It was with the Blair/Brown government despite the war crimes, the toadying to Murdoch and Ecclestone, PFI and all the other shit. There were positives with housing, child care, workers rights, mildly redistributive budgets, devolution etc.
I don't think a Starmer government would have that many positives - and I despise the man - but it will be better than the Tories.
Clearly it's not alright with you. Let's move on.
And I understand why people will vote for Starmer's Labour because of this. My view is that, when you award Starmer's and Blair's version of Labour with electoral success, you allow them to say "See? This is the sort of socialism the British people want". So you get Corbyn ostracised by his own party and a continual shift to the right so that Labour and Conservatives are almost indistinguishable. And maybe that model of the Labour Party is indeed what the British people want. But it isn't what I want and I won't lend them my vote to bolster their claims.
I understand that and sympathise with that view - and am on the cusp of going the same way. But I am still, just, by my fingernails holding on to the view that as someone is going to hold governmental power I prefer it to be the ones who might do a bit less damage and a bit more good (however fine the margins).
I also still believe that a Labour Party that has organisational links to the labour movement can have its behaviour and policy choices modified from below - sometimes. I respect some of its MPs and many of its activists. It is not the same party I joined in the late 1970s (and again in the mid 1980s and late 2010s - 31 years all told) - ripping up Clause 4, turning conference into an annual rally, purging the membership and relying or corporate donors and lobbyists for funding and direction have gutted Labour - but the last vestiges remain (just) of the party it used to be.
Not sure why he is flip flopping so much, the Labour conference and their union bosses have wet his agenda for him.
Maybe he now realised being in govt is a bit than just carping from the side lines like an old pantomime dame after a few guns
A bit like what nick clegg ended up being. If you suns don’t add up you don’t win the election
Whilst I agree that it likely makes sense not to bury themselves. The state of the country now means a Corbyn 17 or 19 manifesto without Corbyn in charge would absolutely walk it - they can commit to bold policies without risking their position imo.
Unfortunately reevesonomics (/standard British establishment economics) is not going to fix Britain's problems.
It was a meme policy that probably doesn't achieve anything but ditching their opposition to scrapping it looks shady, either they believe in the symbolism/intention of it or they don't. If they think it is pointless because there are ways to get around it and that is why they aren't going to oppose it then they should say that.
'union bosses' is such a cliche Tory attack line that implies the party is controlled by some kind of shady cabal. Essentially you are talking about a bit of influence held by a few very public figures who are democratically elected by millions of ordinary working people.
The fact that this line is pushed by a PM who has had his bollocks cut off by the right of his party because he had to make a deal with them to avoid losing a members vote, is frankly ridiculous. The fact that some people have eaten it up and parrot it, is even more ridiculous.
I'm beginning to come around to the idea that this is a brilliant election strategy to deal with Tory and Right Wing Press critique. Basically, if Labour are attacked on any policy....then change it....scrap it....ditch it. Create a set of new principles. It's really clever when you think about it. I may rejoin if that's the case. It's the only thing that I'm left clinging onto.
At the last election in 2019 labour registered donations of 5.4 million, of that over 5 million came from trade unions (fullfact.org)
So yeah trade unions definitely don’t set policy 😀
The Labour Party raised £5.6m from large private donations in the second quarter of 2023 alone. Trades Unions have been reducing their contributions as the party ingores them and ignores the votes of conference. Under Corbyn most funding came from the expanded membership subscription base (since then a quarter of a million members have left or been pushed out) and small scale individual donations. Now it is corporate and rich donor funding - and that is where you should look to see how policy is set!
Posting Permissions