Keir Starmer

[Numero Veinticinco]

On 30/05/2020 at 20:28, Section_31 said:

I don't think the voting intention stuff can be trusted until Brexit is well in the rear view

Yep, agreed. That said, it's better to be gaining support and credibility than losing it! 

[VladimirIlyich]

10 hours ago, Neil G said:

The problem with the 2019 manifesto wasn’t so much the policies per se as the way in which they were put forward. The new ones that hadn’t been in the 2017 manifesto were sprung on the voters at short notice without any time to get them used to the ideas behind them and persuade them that they were beneficial, achievable and affordable.

 

Aside from the Brexit referendum, the manifesto policies which damaged Labour the most were free broadband and the four-day week. Free broadband was seen by many voters at the time as an unnecessary perk, which played into the “free stuff for everyone” caricature of Labour under Corbyn. The four-day week was a much more complex policy which would have required months if not years of communicating to the electorate how it would be made to work, and a lot of voters thought it was completely unrealistic and poorly thought through. You can also add the pledge of compensation to the WASPI women - not actually in the manifesto - which committed Labour to more than £50bn of additional spending just days after the manifesto announced all its spending plans were fully costed, reinforcing the image of Labour as profligate and unable to manage the public finances.

 

The more ambitious your programme for government, the more time and effort you have to put into gaining understanding and acceptance of new policies. Labour didn’t do that in 2019. By contrast the popular policies from 2017, most of which survived through to 2019 and have been kept by Starmer - nationalising rail, mail, energy and water, higher taxes on the rich, investment in green energy, expanded free child care, abolishing tuition fees etc - had been on the political agenda for years beforehand and were widely understood and supported by the public, or at least by those sections of the public they were targeted at.

 

Labour’s presentation of their manifesto was a self-inflicted wound, and it’s understandable that a lot of voters were put off by it.

I disagree regarding the presentation of the manifesto and think,as I've said before,there was a naivety and maybe even laziness,in thinking that the populism that caused a minority government in 2017 (was it?') was still there. This allowed the tory press to hammer home the pro brexit stance at every opportunity while Labour was looking the other way believing a confirmation vote was the right way to go,which it wasn't. The right way would simply to have said to fight for Britain's best interests in the exit negotiations and then if elected revisit things at a later date. That said,I am sceptical a Labour government could be elected at all given how the popular media has become just one big tory mouthpiece. Even under Thatcher the BBC and ITV often criticised her governments policies,grilled ministers and showed controversial programmes reflecting the plight of mining and steelworking communities. I don't see much of this at all any more.

[Numero Veinticinco]

On 30/05/2020 at 12:40, Neil G said:

In the context, for a finite period during the pandemic and the recovery, it’s really not a big amount.

Well, that being your first sentence, we already have a big disagreement. I think it's a really big amount. I think it's fuckin' colossal, mate. 

 

On 30/05/2020 at 12:40, Neil G said:

Entering into a recession this deep and severe is not the time to be worrying about the deficit.

I don't want to chop your post up and reply to each sentence, but to chop your post up and reply to your second sentence... I actually disagree. I think we do have to worry about deficit and debt whilst entering a recession. This particular recession is an interesting one, where nothing economic has really caused it. We stopped big parts of the economy so we could stay home (and avoid the virus, not for the fun of it). When things return to normal, the recovery will be swift and powerful. When making policy, we absolutely have to be concerned about the impact it has on the deficit. 

 

On 30/05/2020 at 12:40, Neil G said:

Increased government spending will be needed to stimulate the economy, and a lot of it will be recouped from the increased economic activity that will result. If the government doesn’t act the recovery will be longer and slower which will carry its own massive costs to the exchequer in the medium to long term. This stuff isn’t radical, it’s standard soft left Keynesian economic orthodoxy.

That's a general comment about the effects of the virus, I agree with it. We will need to stimulate the economy in these times, and we do need to inject money into the economy to ensure the health of the economy whilst people are in lockdown and shit is hitting the fan. That is sound Keynesian economic theory. You're right, I agree, and we are on the same page. What it isn't is relevant to idea that Labour should be causing all hell in the media about paying people's rent. That's a different thing. That said, in an effort to shorten this post, I totally accept where you say that this is just one option and you don't favour it. So, for now at least, let's just say that on this point it's unpalatable to me and we might well disagree on the reason why. Let's look at things we are closer on. 

 

On 30/05/2020 at 12:40, Neil G said:

I don’t know where you’ve got the idea from that everyone is covered.

I don't have the idea that everyone is covered [EDIT: please read edit below]. I was responding to the comment about millions of people being homeless, which I think is pretty much without foundation. I don't agree that it is a plausible scenario. If it was the case, instead of taking issue with your comments about the way Labour have suggested a two year period of repayment, I'd be supporting your call for Labour to be up in arms, media blitz, etc, etc. I'm saying, and just to clarify my entire issue here, the problem you have laid out and the reaction you wanted to see to it is not as colossal as you are describing, therefore the criticism if the two year period and Labour's reaction isn't a particularly fair one in my view.

 

EDIT: I accept that not everyone is covered, at least immediately. Having re-read how I phrased it, it looked as if I was saying everybody falls into those categories. Although most will eventually, some aren't and I should have been clearer in my response, as in my mind I was referring to the millions of people homeless rather than being specific to everybody eligible. So I accept that not everybody is covered, and I'll talk about those in a second, but I'll clarify what I think about this particular issue. 

 

First off, covered is actually the wrong word. Covered can and usually does mean entirely. What I mean is that most people, not all but by-far enough to avoid millions of people homeless (which we absolutely will not see), have some enough coverage that will help them through the situation. I mean, 80% of wage isn't covered (unless the employer is adding the 20%). Housing benefit for private renters isn't fully covered. So they're not 'covered' exactly, but - and here's the clarity - the vast majority of people who were working and now have issues because of the situation fall into the '80% of wages or eligible for housing benefit' category and this is enough coverage to avoid millions of people becoming homeless. So the point being the issue you're describing isn't as catastrophic as you have laid it out to be. That's not to say it isn't a big enough issue to warrant government intervention... it absolutely is. This is where we agree. 

 

So, to condense it down, you criticised Labour for reacting weakly, saying there should be massive response and media blitz, etc. Where we end up with, really, is that it could - depending on the actual requirement - need extending. No media blitz, no catastrophe, no injection of small country's GDP to pay for rent, but a change of criticism to, 'it's on the right track but needs to do more to help'. Well, that's a much more palatable proposition to deal with. The question then becomes how much help do people actually require. I suggested that the bulk of this should be with the property owner who already has the option of a mortgage break that he should be forced to pass on to his occupants if they meet certain criteria (and I say that because if you've got hundreds of thousands in the bank then... fuck you, pay your rent). If there's need to go beyond that, and I can see cases where it is, then of course there should be help to avoid help. Coupled with not being allowed to evict people for a certain period, this should surely be enough to avoid both homelessness and too much financial hardship during the period it takes to get people back into work. 

 

I suspect that our disagreement is not going to end with what I said there, as the root of the disagreement seems to be how big the problem actually is. I want to see a solution that matches the scale of the problem, I think I just see the scale of that specific issue as smaller than you do. I'll happily change my view on the scale of the solution if there's something more concrete about the scale of the issue. As of now, it seems to me that the type of solution Labour have proposed looks reasonable, although I accept there's potentially room for adjustment on the time and size of the help required. 

 

 

[Barrington Womble]

2 hours ago, VladimirIlyich said:

I disagree regarding the presentation of the manifesto and think,as I've said before,there was a naivety and maybe even laziness,in thinking that the populism that caused a minority government in 2017 (was it?') was still there. This allowed the tory press to hammer home the pro brexit stance at every opportunity while Labour was looking the other way believing a confirmation vote was the right way to go,which it wasn't. The right way would simply to have said to fight for Britain's best interests in the exit negotiations and then if elected revisit things at a later date. That said,I am sceptical a Labour government could be elected at all given how the popular media has become just one big tory mouthpiece. Even under Thatcher the BBC and ITV often criticised her governments policies,grilled ministers and showed controversial programmes reflecting the plight of mining and steelworking communities. I don't see much of this at all any more.

The BBC is especially bad and if it does something even slightly critical, it's slaughtered and apologises. For me actually and I've said this throughout, I think that populism in 2017 was a bit of a myth. Basically the BBC turned on May because they didn't like the restricted access that started the campaign and then went full on she was no longer their mate after the dementia tax fiasco. That's not to say they became Corbyn's mate either, it just levelled the playing field. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

I just got around to watching the latest PMQs. Starmer has Johnson rattled in PMQs. I don't know if it'll continue when he has a mob behind him or what, but as of now Johnson is left with only the 'he's picking on us' excuse to every question. It's very strange to watch. Starmer looks intelligent and in control, and Johnson looks like a messy schoolboy who lost the plot. 

 

There's a long way to go to know if Starmer can turn around Labour's fortunes from the lows that he inherited from successive failed leaderships, but so far he is at least heading in the right direction on a lot of things. 

[Bjornebye]

Funny how the PM wearing an earpiece hasn't been all over the media since PMQ's. Quickly brushed under the carpet. 

 

His outburst was embarrassing. Absolute twat 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Interesting neg. Not enough smilie faces and ‘lols’ for you, ardja?

[Pureblood]

2 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Interesting neg. Not enough smilie faces and ‘lols’ for you, ardja?

I'd imagine it's the "successive failed leaderships" line and "inherited lows". 

[sir roger]

To be fair , I would expect anybody on here to tie Johnson in knots in the present ' shooting fish in a barrel ' scenario, let alone a previous DPP.

[Anubis]

Here we go. FFS. Always "Look down, they're the one's trying to take your money. Look down." Never look up at the offshore tax haven cunts and billionaire tax dodgers. And this is Labour. Just fuck off.

 

Quote

Britain’s welfare system needs a stronger link between “what you put in and what you get out” to tackle cynicism among working people, Labour’s new Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary has said.

 

Jonathan Reynolds said those who have made “greater contributions to the system” should receive more out of it.

 

And he told The House that a lack of “connection” between contributions and support was now a “big problem” for Britain’s social security system.

 

[sir roger]

The likes of this and the elevation of Rachel Reeves is making me very worried at Starmers direction of travel. Whatever your thoughts re Corbyn , surely austerity is dead and I cant believe Labour think that going back to attempting to be slightly less cuntier Tories is the way to go.

[Jairzinho]

Just now, sir roger said:

The likes of this and the elevation of Rachel Reeves is making me very worried at Starmers direction of travel. Whatever your thoughts re Corbyn , surely austerity is dead and I cant believe Labour think that going back to attempting to be slightly less cuntier Tories is the way to go.

You have to hope it's all bullshit. That they're just trying to get volvo nonce to vote for them. Then, when in power, they will actually be a Democratic Socialist party.

[sir roger]

Looking for the gif from the commentator on ' Dodgeball ', Jair.

 

[skend04]

6 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

You have to hope it's all bullshit. That they're just trying to get volvo nonce to vote for them. Then, when in power, they will actually be a Democratic Socialist party.

This is what the Tories have done over the years. Pretended to be centre right and then just put forward right/hard right policies. It's all a game and Labour need to be the same.

[sir roger]

They haven't been pretending much over the recent decade , Skend.

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 hour ago, TK421 said:

I'd imagine it's the "successive failed leaderships" line and "inherited lows". 

Just factual, really. Unless we're counting the last decade - let that sink in, btw - of Tory rule as a success of Labour leadership, rather than Brown, Miliband, and Corbyn failing to win elections, finally resulting in Labour getting absolutely fucking smashed, losing Scotland, losing the North, losing credibility, and most of all losing any sort of power. Don't get me wrong, I don't care about the neg, just find it baffling that he'd object to what I posted. 

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 hour ago, Anubis said:

Here we go. FFS. Always "Look down, they're the one's trying to take your money. Look down." Never look up at the offshore tax haven cunts and billionaire tax dodgers. And this is Labour. Just fuck off.

It'll be interesting to see if something like that makes it into policy. Sounds ridiculous and would breed inequality whilst punishing those who have not been able to pay into the system themselves (like the disabled, for example). I would expect something like that to be kicked the fuck out pretty quickly. That said, having him saying it without thinking through the ramifications isn't a good sign of his competence. I haven't seen what he said in his entirety or what he has said since, but if it's as it looks from that quote then an ass slap will no doubt be handed out.

[Numero Veinticinco]

Ah, here's the full interview. It does read a bit differently. In fact, I take back what I said in the previous post. He's not suggesting a system that those lines make it sound like he is. 

 

https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/excl-welfare-system-should-be-based-more-on-what-you-put-in-to-tackle-public-mistrust-says-shadow-work-and-pensions-secretary

 

EDIT: More from him. I think it's fair to say they're in the policy construction phase and they're looking at everything. Punishing the poor, disabled, children, and increasing inequality isn't on the table. 

 

https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/jonathan-reynolds-interview

[Pureblood]

17 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Just factual, really. Unless we're counting the last decade - let that sink in, btw - of Tory rule as a success of Labour leadership, rather than Brown, Miliband, and Corbyn failing to win elections, finally resulting in Labour getting absolutely fucking smashed, losing Scotland, losing the North, losing credibility, and most of all losing any sort of power. Don't get me wrong, I don't care about the neg, just find it baffling that he'd object to what I posted. 

 

I guess it's subjective.  The hung parliament in 2017 was a result that few predicted.  Describing his tenure as an outright failure seems a touch bitter, given the popularity he had at one stage. When you factor in the media hatchet job and all the AS stuff, it comes across as harsh and judgemental.  Let's face it, your post was a blatant swipe at Corbyn.

[Numero Veinticinco]

40 minutes ago, TK421 said:

I guess it's subjective.  

Well, I guess the criteria for what constitutes a failure is. I'm pretty sure their objective was to win an election, so that's definitely a failure. Doing 'better than expected' might well be a success to some. It resulted in a Tory government, so I'm not going to go crazy myself. I find it strange that some seem to wear that loss as a badge of honour, but each to their own. However, I think I'm on pretty safe ground describing Labour having successive failures and being at a very low point when Corbyn left - for a number of reasons, some because of Corbyn, some as a result of Corbyn, and some not his fault at all - but it is what it is.

 

42 minutes ago, TK421 said:

Let's face it, your post was a blatant swipe at Corbyn.

No, my post was a swipe at all of those who came before him. I was pretty clear about that. I think successive leaders have dropped the ball. I liked Brown the most out of any leaders since I was old enough to vote, but I put him in that bracket too. If I wanted to have a swipe at Corbyn, I'd have just had a swipe at Corbyn - after all, I've done it many times and think his leadership going into the last election was shite - but I was actually making a wider point that 'successive failed leaderships' is hard to come back from. 

[Pureblood]

2 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Well, I guess the criteria for what constitutes a failure is. I'm pretty sure their objective was to win an election, so that's definitely a failure. Doing 'better than expected' might well be a success to some. It resulted in a Tory government, so I'm not going to go crazy myself. I find it strange that some seem to wear that loss as a badge of honour, but each to their own. However, I think I'm on pretty safe ground describing Labour having successive failures and being at a very low point when Corbyn left - for a number of reasons, some because of Corbyn, some as a result of Corbyn, and some not his fault at all - but it is what it is.

If you define "success" in absolute terms and solely with regard to the last general election then by that strict criteria Corbyn failed.  I'd say there's more to it than that.  He forced the Tories into an uncomfortable marriage of convenience with the DUP, inflicted a series of Commons defeats on Theresa May - eventually seeing her off - and was a catalyst for a surge in membership of the Labour Party.  They're all tangible measures of success, in my view.

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

30 minutes ago, TK421 said:

If you define "success" in absolute terms and solely with regard to the last general election then by that strict criteria Corbyn failed.  I'd say there's more to it than that.  He forced the Tories into an uncomfortable marriage of convenience with the DUP, inflicted a series of Commons defeats on Theresa May - eventually seeing her off - and was a catalyst for a surge in membership of the Labour Party.  They're all tangible measures of success, in my view.

I see the point you’re making, but I’m on a different page of that book. I think you’re right to point to positive things that Labour have done, but to me it sounds a bit like ‘yeah, we didn’t win anything but we beat United’. There’s only so much I can give credit for getting rid of May without looking who took over and won a majority. I can only look at the ‘forcing a marriage of convenience’ through a lens of ‘years of power that punished lots of people’. I’m not denying it’s better to have a membership surge than not, I’m just saying, in the wider scheme of things... it’s not that important. 

[Megadrive Man]

Ipsos Mori suggesting a rise in support for Starmer and Labour.

 

[Pureblood]

8 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I see the point you’re making, but I’m on a different page of that book. I think you’re right to point to positive things that Labour have done, but to me it sounds a bit like ‘yeah, we didn’t win anything but we beat United’. There’s only so much I can give credit for getting rid of May without looking who took over and won a majority. I can only look at the ‘forcing a marriage of convenience’ through a lens of ‘years of power that punished lots of people’. I’m not denying it’s better to have a membership surge than not, I’m just saying, in the wider scheme of things... it’s not that important. 

There's more to politics than general elections.  I think he did well in opposition and holding the government to account during May's time as PM. The coronavirus crisis has shown he was correct to highlight social inequality and base his policies accordingly. 

[Rico1304]

5 minutes ago, TK421 said:

There's more to politics than general elections.  I think he did well in opposition and holding the government to account during May's time as PM. The coronavirus crisis has shown he was correct to highlight social inequality and base his policies accordingly. 

Apart from that Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?