Those aren't exactly the seismic changes you're expecting from an opposition party hoping to take over from a disastrous 14 years of their incumbent rivals. In terms of major policy points like austerity, green sustainability and foreign policy they've completely bottled it in terms of offering a much needed alternative, presumably to cater to donors and the elements of the Tory right support base they're trying to sway. I understand that from a tactical electoral perspective, but it's not exactly enticing for a voter like me and millions of others.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
I'm actually pretty central politically, probably left socially and centre economically and that's the worry for me with what labour are doing as they're looking like the conservatives from 10 years ago on policies. I may vote labour because my local MP is superb, and has done a lot for the local community but she is the only reason for that and is well aware of what people think about the party in my area at the moment. That will depend on the final manifesto though.
I agree about getting the tories out but it will change nothing long term. PR could happen but it takes a couple of elections where people vote for what they want. it has been close to happening only a decade or so ago, and although not a good version of it could have been a step forwards. PR tends to be end up central with policy due to its nature though, so for people on the left i(or centre left) it's better than what we have now but not ideal.
Last edited:
When did this come in?
It's a bit of a clue, though, isn't it?
Our country and the people that run it are in the gutter.
The debt to GDP ratio is forecast at 98.6% by the end of 2024. That is higher than anytime in my lifetime and only the first and second world war have triggered a higher rate.
I understand the household economics are not national economics argument.
Take off the child benefit cap = 3 billion.
Dental care in crisis how much?
Housing capacity crisis 2 million homes shortfall and the UK population to 74 million by 2040 = how much on housing.
NHS=?
Social care ?
Child protection?
Education ?
UK Defence spending post Ukraine war how much extra ?
Policing.
Funding for legal aid.
Road/rail/transport ?
I might come across as a deficit hawk but I don't see and end to the list of things people want the govt to find the money for and its not like we are not running a huge deficit because we are and the era of low interest rates is over.
The UK is 2395 billion pounds in debt.
How much does the UK government spend on debt interest? I asked the internet.
How much interest does the government pay on its borrowing? Interest payments on government's past borrowing are a relatively big cost for government. In 2022/23, government's net debt interest spending was £112 billion, which is equivalent to 4.4% of GDP or 9.7% of government spending.
I understand the household economics are not national economics argument.
Take off the child benefit cap = 3 billion.
Dental care in crisis how much?
Housing capacity crisis 2 million homes shortfall and the UK population to 74 million by 2040 = how much on housing.
NHS=?
Social care ?
Child protection?
Education ?
UK Defence spending post Ukraine war how much extra ?
Policing.
Funding for legal aid.
Road/rail/transport ?
I might come across as a deficit hawk but I don't see and end to the list of things people want the govt to find the money for and its not like we are not running a huge deficit because we are and the era of low interest rates is over.
The UK is 2395 billion pounds in debt.
How much does the UK government spend on debt interest? I asked the internet.
How much interest does the government pay on its borrowing? Interest payments on government's past borrowing are a relatively big cost for government. In 2022/23, government's net debt interest spending was £112 billion, which is equivalent to 4.4% of GDP or 9.7% of government spending.
No, it’s observing that things have changed in the 2.5yrs since they made that pledge.
Imagine if, at a certain point in time, I pledged to save up £30k for a full body tattoo (no idea of the pricing, was just trying to find a good example) and whilst I’m saving I fell in love, got married and had a child. If I still had that goal, given my new circumstances, I’d be deemed crazy and most likely divorced.
I don’t agree with what they've done in the slightest, and will be voicing such in the next local Party meeting, but I’d much rather a Party change before they (hopefully) get elected than reneging once in power.
The Tories are leaving nothing left for future spend (or less than nothing if you take the OBRs damning indictment).
Why are stubborn idealists still bleating on about broken pledges and promises. The picture is getting worse every day, it would be madness to ignore that.
Labour also can’t ignore they’d be pounced upon if they stood their ground on the pledge, given their other opposing key pledge of fiscal prudence. Let them finish the job of being elected and then apply pressure if you wish on these (very critical) areas.
Why are stubborn idealists still bleating on about broken pledges and promises. The picture is getting worse every day, it would be madness to ignore that.
Labour also can’t ignore they’d be pounced upon if they stood their ground on the pledge, given their other opposing key pledge of fiscal prudence. Let them finish the job of being elected and then apply pressure if you wish on these (very critical) areas.
Amen!
I’d be very interested to see the ages of these ideological puritanicals, as it seems to me like they’ve never experienced anything other than the last 14yrs and don’t know the extent of what it is we’ve lost in that time.
How is the picture getting worse every day? Just the debt, or other things?
Like @Don't Kill Bill was outlining above, the number of things that have been and continue to fall apart is long and growing every day. He can't see an end to it, neither can I.
The essential difference is not between "stubborn idealists" or "ideological puritanicals" and the self styled "Very Practical Men Club" but between those who think we should kick this can even further down the road in order to service our debts (You, Don't Kill Bill, @Jericholyte2, the Tories, Labour) and those who think that if we don't start to invest in stuff now an even bigger reckoning will be due later.
Last edited:
A lot of that can be attacked by sensible market-driven policies that won't cost the state a penny. Just needs a government with some balls.
Starmer and Labour are twats, but they at least appear to have the interests of the country at heart rather than the blatant cronyism, corruption and self-destruction of the tories.
#1 priority right now simply has to be to get rid of the tories, otherwise it’s just rearranging the deckchairs on the titanic. Once they are gone, it’s time to start holding Starmer to account and push for more progressive policies.
#1 priority right now simply has to be to get rid of the tories, otherwise it’s just rearranging the deckchairs on the titanic. Once they are gone, it’s time to start holding Starmer to account and push for more progressive policies.
This one could be fun to follow. Kneecap are likely to get more and more high profile too.
https://www.thejournal.ie/kneecap-win-audience-award-sundance-6283072-Jan2024/
The Tories need to be pummelled into becoming a fringe party
I actually think the left's anger helps Labour because it makes their right of centre framings appear more genuine to untrusting but angry one nation Tories. Your first sentence is why the vast majority of their left wing base will still probably end up voting for them; with the caveat that "interests of the country at heart" is more debatable than I'd like.
Vote Starmer, destroy this current crop of Conservatives, then worry about holding Starmer to account.
Continuing to vote Tory at this point is mental after the last 14 years. They offer nothing positive. Loads of leader changes, corruption, infighting etc - I’m done with it.
Continuing to vote Tory at this point is mental after the last 14 years. They offer nothing positive. Loads of leader changes, corruption, infighting etc - I’m done with it.
Or vote in Starmer. Have 3-4 years of non-action while the media blame Labour for everything the Tories did in the previous 14 years and the next general election all is forgiven and forgotten and the same Tory party get in with another super majority on an anti-immigration / low tax platform.
Let’s say I agree with you and that it’s a mistake not to invest in these areas.
How do we get realistic action?
Infighting on the Left, hampering the Starmer front and leaving the door slightly open for 5 more years of Sunak and co. Or, get behind the only other party that can win and actually has a good chance on acting on the areas of similar interest. Voting Green etc won’t further the cause under FPTP.
Giving the Tories a sniff at more power is literally kicking the can down the road, in my opinion.
I'll repeat what I've said to others but you're taking a narrow view of the issue, the OBR is quite clear in it's reports that the cost of delaying net zero impacts future finances negatively and that undermines our ability to control debt. Why you lot keep ignoring this is beyond me.
Like everyone our R-G is bad right now such is the change in the global economy and interest rates. However the economic risks require mitigation and they don't disappear because of politically driven fiscal management. The IMF and OBR are predicting a better R-G and increased slack in economies, 28 billion a year is nothing in that context (see increased defence spending) and supports the growth part of the R-G measure.
We need to spend wisely if we're to limit (not stop) debt growth and that starts with measures that have the best long term outcomes for public finances.
I've sort of given my opinion of this in my reply to @Walrus above. I think the vast majority of the left will be dragged along kicking and screaming (I will) precisely because the Tories are so fecking terrible. I also think that Labour's right of centre bona fide's are enhanced via left wing criticism. Labour were fine in the polls before the latest U turn. I think they'll be just as fine after it. Hatred of this current crop of Tories is endemic, and that hatred means that the bounds for acceptable opposition policies are probably pretty elastic. There was no pressing electoral need for the latest U-turn. If, at some point, Starmer leads his party so far to the right that he starts haemorrhaging left wing support then the fault lies more with him than with the left wingers he increasingly abandons.
As to how we get realistic action. I don't know. I'm pretty sure, though, that patient silence married to hoping hard enough isn't going to get it done. I'd like to see more concrete plans and a framework of investment presented that highlights both the costs and projected benefits. There's some half decent economic analyses of the benefits of free school meals knocking about. Those are reasonable models for evaluating policies and couching the benefits of social investment in economic terms. This sort of analysis should have been expanded a while ago: This is the policy>This is the method of implementation>This is the cost>This is the expected economic benefit. Analyses of the costs of failing to invest should be highlighted and presented in a similar manner. There's plenty of highly visible projections for future debt repayments, but fewer that analyse the future costs of today's underinvestment. I think redressing this imbalance in reporting and analysis would go a long way to spurring greater action.
I wouldn't be as mad if this money Labour are saving from reneging on their Green Pledge is earmarked for investment elsewhere, but it's not. The entire schtick seems to be to tap a big red sign that says "fiscal rules" while surreptitiously shoving the "social costs" sign in a drawer.
I swear if you’d grouped me in with the Tories in person…!
I want a green revolution, I’m on anti-depressants in part because of the climate crisis, I want something for my 20 month old daughter who has DS to be able to manage for her lifetime, so don’t think for one single second that I’m not gutted about their decision.
But I also know that we have to start somewhere. Labour’s watered-down version is still a distance away from Tory policy of opening more deep sea drilling and coal production.
There has to be a transition (albeit it should have started 30yrs ago) but I’ll take a slow start over sticking my head in the sand, especially when, if you check some of my earlier posts, you see just how broken this country is.
Great post and my very best wishes for both you and your family.
I have 5 young grandchildren. And I also am concerned about the type of planet they will grow up in.
Part of me is optimistic because I am an optimist. That part believes that human ingenuity will be able to solve the climate emergency.
The other part believes it is already too late and global warming is accelerating out of control.
Yeah I hear you, it is still comparatively better than the Tories but it's an ever dwindling gap which, in my opinion at least, is going to lead to an ever bleaker future.
I think the main fault line here is over the difference between necessary sacrifice and unnecessary capitulation. You and I both think that it is necessary to sacrifice what we consider core principles to kick out the Tories. Fair enough, that's common ground, but there's a point at which you're being asked to give too much even if you're willing to give it. I'd die to save my kids but I don't think it's reasonable to demand my life if all that's needed is my kidney. I think we're past the point of electoral expedience here and fast approaching an ideological realignment of the Labour party to right of centre American democrats.
I agree that we have to start somewhere and there has to be a transition. My fear, ever growing, is that the transition isn't so much between Conservative > Labour as names over the door but the transition Labour>Tory in principles under the floor.
First you have to get Labour in power with a majority that means it can move mountains, then give them time to address the problems realistically. To turn the good ship UK around, or merely to avoid the rocks (Climate, Energy, Water and Migration) in the future, is going to take three terms... at least
Last time when Labour was in a three term government with Blair and Brown, some things got done, but not a lot, Blair and Brown crossed swords and this bled Labour internally, mainly because both had differing views about how to get things done. Starmer can't afford that luxury, at the moment he seems to have his troops in the expected shadow cabinet, four square behind him.
It's now or never for Labour and for the future of the millions of ordinary folk in this country, your children, grandchildren and possibly your great grandchildren will never forgive you if you 'ba**'s it up again with internal 'left v right' machinations... this is not the time to take your ball home, because the ref appears to have missed a stone-wall penalty.
Last edited:
I understand the people who will be reluctantly voting Labour as it’s a two party system or have a good local Labour MP. It’s the others who are now really into defending austerity policies and water down climate pledges that I don’t get.
Thanks. I had no idea about this. A depressing read
Same. My current Election Day plans are
Vote Starmer and reward the stitching-up of the left.
If I thought the tories had a chance of winning, then I might reluctantly vote labour. But the tories will get far fewer votes than last time, that much is certain. If labour win with a massive majority, then where's the incentive for them to ever put forward a left-ish manifesto again? They already think they're being 'grown up' by ditching investment, when in reality such investments are the only sensible solution to not only the climate crisis, but the general downturn this country has seen over the last 20 years.
Voting green may be little more than symbolic. They aren't a party equipped to hold many seats even if they somehow won a few dozen. But at some point we have to move away from the 2 party stranglehold, and at least a vote for them is a vote closer to my ideals and, in some small way at least, gives them extra clout going forward.
If I thought the tories had a chance of winning, then I might reluctantly vote labour. But the tories will get far fewer votes than last time, that much is certain. If labour win with a massive majority, then where's the incentive for them to ever put forward a left-ish manifesto again? They already think they're being 'grown up' by ditching investment, when in reality such investments are the only sensible solution to not only the climate crisis, but the general downturn this country has seen over the last 20 years.
Voting green may be little more than symbolic. They aren't a party equipped to hold many seats even if they somehow won a few dozen. But at some point we have to move away from the 2 party stranglehold, and at least a vote for them is a vote closer to my ideals and, in some small way at least, gives them extra clout going forward.
Thankfully I have a decent local MP, which has made voting labour for me much easier to reconcile since 2015.
What I just don’t get is, truly, for the first time in the last 14 years the electorate seems sick to their back teeth of the Tory government and yet the Labour party’s strategy is to be the Tory government
I moved to one of the Labour areas that went Tory in the last election. The local Tory MP is involved in gay conversation therapy so pretty motivated to vote Labour
The problem with Labour was choosing the wrong leader at a crucial time. There's one window of opportunity and this is it.
But the British electorate seem to like choosing weak leaders and proven liars.
What a waste.
But the British electorate seem to like choosing weak leaders and proven liars.
What a waste.
It's the same conundrum as the US. If you're in a competitive area vote responsibly, if you are in a safe seat you can do a protest vote by voting green. If the greens end up winning that seat they have a voice in parliament, and if there is a hung parliament will potentially get concessions to supply confidence.
I think many of them are just right wingers. Starmer lied during the leadership(His campaign was getting backed by all sorts of right forces)and even Starmer career before was pretty telling. The guy is a knighted sir who upheld the decision not to prosecute the officers that killed Jean Charles de Menaces. And large sections of the PLP spent the Corbyn years getting to get him and left wing labour members.
With these people in charge of the party left wing policy was and is never going to be implemented imo.
Well, I am in a competitive area. It's been labour for many years but, due to boundary changes and brexit, it flipped to tory recently. I'm still confident it will flip back to labour this time. If it doesn't, then so be it. This version of labour don't deserve a huge majority. If they spend 5 years courting the right wing vote and I still vote for them, then more fool me.
And if the Tories win then they have already committed to further public service cuts to fund tax breaks for higher earners so unless you are earning a decent wack will suck to be you, and god knows how far they will take the piss going forward
That's the gamble, yes. But it's one labour are taking by moving so far to the right.
I understand the people who will be reluctantly voting Labour as it’s a two party system or have a good local Labour MP. It’s the others who are now really into defending austerity policies and water down climate pledges that I don’t get.
Thanks. I had no idea about this. A depressing read
Same. My current Election Day plans are
I seriously don’t get what you don’t get…given the choice in a two-Party system I’ll choose a watered down climate policy over one that denies climate change exists (see 30p Lee Anderthal and the fact that Sunak will be appearing on a TV station that happily hosts climate change deniers).
What I want from this country is far away from what either Party is offering, but then we enter the ‘Taxi vs Public Transport’ theory about political parties…
If you are talking fiscal policy, they are literally being driven by financial realities, as has been explained probably a dozen times in the thread.
They have said they want to spend more on public services when the economy allows it. The Tories don't believe in providing public services. That's the vote.
Ed Miliband is good example of the average Labour member.
A nice guy who wants nice things but is continuously getting duped and humiliated on a daily basis.
A nice guy who wants nice things but is continuously getting duped and humiliated on a daily basis.
The last few pags of economic arguments and counter arguments have been quite interesting. I kind of see both sides. I wonder though, what if the last 14 years of Tory rule have broken the UK public services AND finances badly enough that it can't be fixed? That is it cannot borrow enough to fix the structural issues?
I think we’re actually well past that point.
The work needed to repair the various systems (public sector, transport, energy, housing, infrastructure just to name a few) will take decades and trillions to do, even assuming that the consistent political will to do it is there.
I don’t see how, barring a major economic revolution, it can realistically happen.