Keir Starmer Labour Leader

[Raven]

https://declassifieduk.org/keir-sta...roup-while-serving-in-corbyns-shadow-cabinet/

Hmmm.

 

[nickm]

Also I notice you removed the section of my post discussing the level of UK debt in detail. Disingenuous to remove that key comment discussing the self defeating nature of austerity, which actually slows the economy further.

I agree that austerity slows the economy and you have to get the balance right on cuts & growth (as I think Alistair Darling's original plan did post the crash) but at the end of the day, if people won't lend to you, then you don't get to choose. Truss found that out.

The UK faces the highest debt interest bill in the developed world at 10.4% of GDP (that is a shocking figure) and it's high because we need to pay a premium to get people to lend to us. Getting that number down while also meeting current and projected spending needs is going to be a big challenge.

Tax rises will be needed just to fund current services in this environment. Call those taxes fair, call them whatever you like, but you won't be launching a bunch of new spending initiatives in this environment, the numbers are just too big.

Why do you think Reeves kicked the £28billion spending plan on net zero down the road? Because she's evil? Or because the the UK's govt balance sheet is horrifying and what on earth else can she do?

 

[nickm]

There are some people that are so desperate for a win that they're willing to sacrifice all of their morals. It's quite sad really.

This is the kind of response that makes it hard to take elements of the left seriously. This isn't about winning, this is about the economic landscape constraining Labour when they are in government and about the need to tailor our expectations accordingly like grown ups do.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

This is the kind of response that makes it hard to take elements of the left seriously. This isn't about winning, this is about the economic landscape constraining Labour when they are in government and about the need to tailor our expectations according, like grown ups do.

Here it come's. The left are children, and by the way insults the other way are why I don't take the left seriously.

Time for some self reflection chap. There's some growing up to be done for all of us.

The centrist manifesto seems to be that precisely as right as we've come is exactly as left as it is fiscally responsible to go.

 

[nickm]

Here it come's. The left are children, and by the way insults the other way are why I don't take the left seriously.

Elements of the left are very hard to take seriously, because they aren't making serious arguments.

It's the accusation that people who say things are going to be difficult and choices constrained, because it is TRUE, are 'sacrificing their morals'. Feck right off.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

Elements of the left.

The "grown-up" comments were aimed at anyone arguing for markedly increased expenditure. That would be "all" of the Labour left. Why on earth would you take children seriously?

 

[Raven]

I agree that austerity slows the economy and you have to get the balance right on cuts & growth (as I think Alistair Darling's original plan did post the crash) but at the end of the day, if people won't lend to you, then you don't get to choose. Truss found that out.

The UK faces the highest debt interest bill in the developed world at 10.4% of GDP (that is a shocking figure) and it's high because we need to pay a premium to get people to lend to us. Getting that number down while also meeting current and projected spending needs is going to be a big challenge.

Tax rises will be needed just to fund current services in this environment. Call those taxes fair, call them whatever you like, but you won't be launching a bunch of new spending initiatives in this environment, the numbers are just too big.

Why do you think Reeves kicked the £28billion spending plan on net zero down the road? Because she's evil? Or because the the UK's govt balance sheet is horrifying and what on earth else can she do?

Well, she is evil, as feck. So probably that.

 

[Raven]

This is the kind of response that makes it hard to take elements of the left seriously. This isn't about winning, this is about the economic landscape constraining Labour when they are in government and about the need to tailor our expectations accordingly like grown ups do.

Absolute tosh, what ever happened to investing in people? You know where the money actually comes from. This short termist bollocks will only lead to more misery.

 

[nickm]

The "grown-up" comments were aimed at anyone arguing for markedly increased expenditure. That would be "all" of the Labour left. Why on earth would you take children seriously?

Serious arguments recognise practicalities. Unserious ones do not.

 

[ZupZup]

The reality is there needs to be a significant increase in spending and taxation... and when I say taxation, I don't mean on the low and middle earners who can't afford it.

Anyone who thinks more austerity is a good idea having lived through the last 15 years might as well say they are happy for a continual, slow and steady decline.

 

[Sweet Square]

 

[Halftrack]

Fully expect him to start talking about how kids don't need to learn about sexuality and gender in school any day now.

 

[stepic]

he is a cnut of the highest order. he's actually worse than a Tory because he's essentially made Labour right wing.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

To be fair to Brown, his initial reaction to the 2008 crash was QE, zero interest rates and austerity, and I think the 'consensus amongst economists' is that this put a brake on the crash at a time it was desperately needed, and he's been pretty well praised for that.

Would Brown have just continued with austerity for another 15 years? I very much doubt it given his record on maintaining growth, but I suppose we will never know.

As for his reliance on services and failure to invest in manufacturing I totally agree. I don't think we've had a government interested in manufacturing since Wilson really, and whilst Corbyn used the term investment a lot don't think that's what he meant.

Yeah possibly unfair throwing Brown in with Cameron (or Osbourne I guess) given that he was responding to the initial hit. I believe the 2010 Labour manifesto called for budget restraint but coupled with increased taxation on the wealthy, rather than the corporation tax and NI cuts the Tories were peddling alongside their huge spending cuts.

But generally my point was just that Labour seem intent on taking the wrong lesson from that saga. Rather than actually examining where they went wrong and why, they've internalised Tory attack lines to the extent they've become policy for the best part of 15 years.

 

[Mogget]

So we've ended up with a US style choice where the two voting options now are essentially "right wing" and "pure evil".

 

[Balljy]

The Labour MP in my constituency is great, very progressive and has been outspoken for trans rights and green policies for a decade or or more. I've kept thinking that she would make me vote Labour in the next election despite the direction of the party under Starmer. They're beginning to look socially right wing now, never mind centre so I can't see how I can justify voting for them in the next election now. I guess Greens it is.

I'd love to speak to my MP to ask what she thinks about all the policies over the last few months.

 

[neverdie]

By design. Punch or Judy. How much do you hate one or the other as they point fingers at each other (misdirectionists) and the press goes along willingly and obediently.

Western democracy, via decline of neoliberalism, has become a complete farce. We live in an era where news spends large amounts of its time talking about other news channels and broadcasters. A complete veneer of personal social networking relevancy. Meanwhile, the state(s) are falling into absolute shit via inflation, lack of general plan, worsening inequality, and climate change.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

Serious arguments recognise practicalities. Unserious ones do not.

Heh. So you don't take "elements" of the left seriously because they insult you, the rest you don't take seriously because of their actual positions.

No matter how right the Tories move that Overton window there you shall drag your deckchair so as to still see the sun. Serious thinker Nickm, astonishingly, after 15 years of its abject failure still thinks austerity is the only viable policy. Any argument that might add 2% to the National Debt is by contrast, deeply unserious and unworthy of discussion.

I don't think anyone should be too concerned by what you consider serious fella.

 

[dumbo]

What a cnut.

 

[sullydnl]

It's not hard to justify taking what I would consider dislikeable positions on some issues in the name of winning sufficient votes from a population who have voted in a dislikeable way in recent times. That's the unpleasant reality of politics, Labour need to appeal to a section of the cnut vote who make up a not insubstantial portion of the electorate. But at a certain point those compromises go past pragmatism and into pandering, and Labour are well past that point.

Immensely dislikeable iteration of the party, whose only real value is in not technically being the Tories.

 

[Sweet Square]

 

[neverdie]

Would just reiterate - these are the values "the establishment" parties represent. That's been the entire Labour struggle since the 70s. Turns out they were right: neoliberalism is a load of shite and trickle-down economics is a scam. Socialism as answer, not necessarily, but neither is this labour/tory no difference shite.

Think about it like this. The workers of the nation tax their employers and call that tax a wage. They are then, in turned, taxed by their employers (via government) which is now basically privately led. Simplistic but not so far off when billionaires can get away with offshore accounts and pay zero to little tax through "legal" loopholes. So the first tax, which is wage, given for labour time, is used to buy products the workers make but which profit goes to the very concentrated 1% or so and then the rest of that tax upon the employers (employees' wages) goes to the state which is set up for the sake of these companies in the first instance. And people wonder why it's all falling to pieces. Socialism will not work. But this version of suicide capitalism needs to feck off.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

I agree that austerity slows the economy and you have to get the balance right on cuts & growth (as I think Alistair Darling's original plan did post the crash) but at the end of the day, if people won't lend to you, then you don't get to choose. Truss found that out.

The UK faces the highest debt interest bill in the developed world at 10.4% of GDP (that is a shocking figure) and it's high because we need to pay a premium to get people to lend to us. Getting that number down while also meeting current and projected spending needs is going to be a big challenge.

Tax rises will be needed just to fund current services in this environment. Call those taxes fair, call them whatever you like, but you won't be launching a bunch of new spending initiatives in this environment, the numbers are just too big.

Why do you think Reeves kicked the £28billion spending plan on net zero down the road? Because she's evil? Or because the the UK's govt balance sheet is horrifying and what on earth else can she do?

Again, I see you cherry picked only a section of my post. No comment on having to "get used to" child poverty.

Yes we are at 100% debt to GDP. It was at 75% in 2010 yet the biggest investments made are to Tory donors, not the country! Regardless, you need to invest to see growth. But invest wisely for the long term.

Meanwhile...

British Gas profits soar by staggering 889% to record £969m as households struggle with huge bills
Centrica, its parent company, has revealed a £6.5 billion profit in the first six months of 2023
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...s-profits-centrica-energy-bills-b2382758.html

Any Starmer policy on increased taxation for profiteering energy companies?

 

[Fluctuation0161]

This is the kind of response that makes it hard to take elements of the left seriously. This isn't about winning, this is about the economic landscape constraining Labour when they are in government and about the need to tailor our expectations accordingly like grown ups do.

While being in denial over the fact that growth requires investment. Very grown up. Tighten those purse strings while the economy continues to shrink due to lack of investment in vital infrastructure. All while a generation of children grow up in poverty with poor education, poor healthcare and little chance of contributing significantly to the future economy either

 

[stw2022]

he is a cnut of the highest order. he's actually worse than a Tory because he's essentially made Labour right wing.

I disagree with someone so they're a cnut. Seems reasonable.

You are the biggest asset the Tories have. Your political outlook is essentially the removal of the Tories from office would represent a tremendous political betrayal. Yet you also presumably kid yourself into believing you're anti-Tory.

Tory wins have always been the lesser of two evils for you

 

[Fluctuation0161]

I disagree with someone so they're a cnut. Seems reasonable.

You are the biggest asset the Tories have. Your political outlook is essentially the removal of the Tories from office would represent a tremendous political betrayal. Yet you also presumably kid yourself into believing you're anti-Tory.

Tory wins have always been the lesser of two evils for you

Personally, I prefer a leader who isn't a compulsive liar.

 

[Herman Toothrot]

Personally, I prefer a leader who isn't a compulsive liar.

How very pro Tory of you.

If you don't support all of Keir's missions, lies and u-turns then you're nothing but a Tory. If Keir shoots somebody, he shouldn't lose anybody's vote as that would just be playing into the Tories hands.

 

[Raven]

I disagree with someone so they're a cnut. Seems reasonable.

You are the biggest asset the Tories have. Your political outlook is essentially the removal of the Tories from office would represent a tremendous political betrayal. Yet you also presumably kid yourself into believing you're anti-Tory.

Tory wins have always been the lesser of two evils for you

This is getting really boring. I mean how many ways are you going to type this lie?

 

[NotThatSoph]

I disagree with someone so they're a cnut. Seems reasonable.

You are the biggest asset the Tories have. Your political outlook is essentially the removal of the Tories from office would represent a tremendous political betrayal. Yet you also presumably kid yourself into believing you're anti-Tory.

Tory wins have always been the lesser of two evils for you

You disagree with someone so they're a Tory asset. Seems reasonable.

 

[Drifter]

 

[Halftrack]

I disagree with someone so they're a cnut. Seems reasonable.

You are the biggest asset the Tories have. Your political outlook is essentially the removal of the Tories from office would represent a tremendous political betrayal. Yet you also presumably kid yourself into believing you're anti-Tory.

Tory wins have always been the lesser of two evils for you

And your political outlook seems to be "remove Tories from office" with very little care for what that would actually entail. And right now, it seems that would entail the same politics and policies, only with a more respectable veneer.

And yet, according to you, it's the people who don't like this who are kidding themselves into thinking they're anti-Tory. Curious.

 

[711]

Typical far left not understanding demographics. Should have gone for Emmerdale Farm > Emerdale to get the old voters on board. Never been the same since.

 

[neverdie]

demographics

					Tories	Labour	LibDems	NoOneCares	Etc.	Etc.
21–22 Oct	Omnisis	N/A	GB	1,353	22%	56%	10%	4%	4%	3%

2%	34
19–21 Oct	JL Partners	N/A	GB	2,000	26%	51%	8%	5%	3%	3%	4%	25
20–21 Oct	YouGov	The Times	GB	1,700	19%	56%	10%	4%	4%	5%

2%	37
19–21 Oct	Opinium	The Observer	UK	2,023	23%	50%	9%	3%	6%	–	6%	27
20 Oct	PeoplePolling	GB News	GB	1,237	14%	53%	11%	5%	6%	5%	5%	39
20 Oct	Omnisis	N/A	GB	1,382	22%	57%	7%	4%	4%	3%	3%	35
19–20 Oct	Techne	N/A	UK	1,632	22%	53%	11%	4%	5%	–	5%	31
19 Oct	Redfield & Wilton	N/A	GB	2,500	19%	55%	12%	4%	4%	4%	1%	36
18–19 Oct	Survation	N/A	UK	1,252	23%	52%	11%	4%	3%	2%

5%	29
13–17 Oct	Deltapoll	N/A	GB	1,050	23%	55%	7%	4%	4%	3%

2%	32
16 Oct	Redfield & Wilton	N/A	GB	2,000	20%	56%	11%	4%	5%	2%	1%	36
14–16 Oct	Savanta ComRes	N/A	UK	2,195	22%	52%	11%	4%	2%	–	8%	30
13–14 Oct	Omnisis	N/A	GB	1,328	28%	49%	10%	3%	5%	2%

3%	21
13 Oct	Redfield & Wilton	N/A	GB	1,500	24%	53%	13%	4%	3%	2%	3%	29

An average of 53% polling for Labour post Truss mini-budget. Before that, you only go a couple of months and Labour and Tories are tied in some polls. What happened? The market shat Truss's version of neoliberalism 3.0 out on contact and the media savaged the Tory party from top to bottom via economic incompetence.

Labour has a consistent 26% lead in the polls for months (since last October). Point: the public has said no to Tory economics and general Tory rule after 13 years. Now, Starmer is moving to that very point: the very one the public has shat out. The lead is discontent with Tory austerity, economic stagnation, and general decline of the UK over that period (post-2008 but mostly Tory mismanagement because other, comparable, nations have emerged from both that crisis and the pandemic with a far more robust economic outlook). Now, what virtue is there in appealing to the very thing the people do not want? Economically? People want an idea of how they are moving forward vis-a-vis social mobility, cost of living, housing crisis, and entire range of such issues. Instead, we have Starmer triangulating - or naviagating - Tory opinion shitrags via cultural commentary. That's not where the lead came from.

 

[711]

					Tories	Labour	LibDems	NoOneCares	Etc.	Etc.
21–22 Oct	Omnisis	N/A	GB	1,353	22%	56%	10%	4%	4%	3%

2%	34
19–21 Oct	JL Partners	N/A	GB	2,000	26%	51%	8%	5%	3%	3%	4%	25
20–21 Oct	YouGov	The Times	GB	1,700	19%	56%	10%	4%	4%	5%

2%	37
19–21 Oct	Opinium	The Observer	UK	2,023	23%	50%	9%	3%	6%	–	6%	27
20 Oct	PeoplePolling	GB News	GB	1,237	14%	53%	11%	5%	6%	5%	5%	39
20 Oct	Omnisis	N/A	GB	1,382	22%	57%	7%	4%	4%	3%	3%	35
19–20 Oct	Techne	N/A	UK	1,632	22%	53%	11%	4%	5%	–	5%	31
19 Oct	Redfield & Wilton	N/A	GB	2,500	19%	55%	12%	4%	4%	4%	1%	36
18–19 Oct	Survation	N/A	UK	1,252	23%	52%	11%	4%	3%	2%

5%	29
13–17 Oct	Deltapoll	N/A	GB	1,050	23%	55%	7%	4%	4%	3%

2%	32
16 Oct	Redfield & Wilton	N/A	GB	2,000	20%	56%	11%	4%	5%	2%	1%	36
14–16 Oct	Savanta ComRes	N/A	UK	2,195	22%	52%	11%	4%	2%	–	8%	30
13–14 Oct	Omnisis	N/A	GB	1,328	28%	49%	10%	3%	5%	2%

3%	21
13 Oct	Redfield & Wilton	N/A	GB	1,500	24%	53%	13%	4%	3%	2%	3%	29

An average of 53% polling for Labour post Truss mini-budget. Before that, you only go a couple of months and Labour and Tories are tied in some polls. What happened? The market shat Truss's version of neoliberalism 3.0 out on contact and the media savaged the Tory party from top to bottom via economic incompetence.

Labour has a consistent 26% lead in the polls for months (since last October). Point: the public has said no to Tory economics and general Tory rule after 13 years. Now, Starmer is moving to that very point: the very one the public has shat out. The lead is discontent with Tory austerity, economic stagnation, and general decline of the UK over that period (post-2008 but mostly Tory mismanagement because other, comparable, nations have emerged from both that crisis and the pandemic with a far more robust economic outlook). Now, what virtue is there in appealing to the very thing the people do not want? Economically? People want an idea of how they are moving forward vis-a-vis social mobility, cost of living, housing crisis, and entire range of such issues. Instead, we have Starmer triangulating - or naviagating - Tory opinion shitrags via cultural commentary. That's not where the lead came from.

Yeah, that's what Mandy Dingle said.

 

[stepic]

I disagree with someone so they're a cnut. Seems reasonable.

You are the biggest asset the Tories have. Your political outlook is essentially the removal of the Tories from office would represent a tremendous political betrayal. Yet you also presumably kid yourself into believing you're anti-Tory.

Tory wins have always been the lesser of two evils for you

No, i disagree with him because he is a cnut. And I am not a cnut. So yeah that is reasonable.

The rest of your blathering idiocy makes very little sense

 

[Red in STL]

No, i disagree with him because he is a cnut. And I am not a cnut. So yeah that is reasonable.

The rest of your blathering idiocy makes very little sense

I bet he thinks you're a cnut though!

 

[Vernon Philander]

It’s taken 13 years for Labour to finally shake off the “there’s no money left” note image (aided wonderfully by Truss). People can’t be serious if they think Starner should do anything but keep that image clean for Labour until they get in power

 

[Bert_]

It’s taken 13 years for Labour to finally shake off the “there’s no money left” note image (aided wonderfully by Truss). People can’t be serious if they think Starner should do anything but keep that image clean for Labour until they get in power

It's still not shaken off and never will be. The Tories will always accuse Labour of hitting people in their pockets as they have done for the past 100 years. They've syphoned your money that you've invested into improving the infrastructure and general quality of life in your country, into their pockets. And they will tell anyone who wants to stop them that they are not serious people.

 

[Vernon Philander]

It's still not shaken off and never will be. The Tories will always accuse Labour of hitting people in their pockets as they have done for the past 100 years. They've syphoned your money that you've invested into improving the infrastructure and general quality of life in your country, into their pockets. And they will tell anyone who wants to stop them that they are not serious people.

Are you saying Labour will join the Tories in syphoning tax payer money into their own pockets? If you’re not, then Labour still will be a better choice given spending commitments between the 2 are broadly the same.

 

[Bert_]

Are you saying Labour will join the Tories in syphoning tax payer money into their own pockets? If you’re not, then Labour still will be a better choice given spending commitments between the 2 are broadly the same.

The current lot running Labour will probably join in