• Welcome to PASOTI (Sponsored by GA Solictors and Lang & Potter)
  • Hello guests - don't forget that by registering and signing up for Pasoti you'll see less adverts plus receive extras like free match tickets, taking part in polls, joining in the chat room and more. Come and join us!

I think Labour has got it wrong

Oct 9, 2003
3,559
35
Aberdeen
Well thanks for stepping up Ave_IT. I find your opening comment quite bizarre to be honest. If Labour Party followers won’t read it, it kind of begs the question ‘what is the point?’. This is your Leader’s vision of the future, the strategic direction. The one that I guess you’ll be voting for. That’s odd isn’t it?

You’ve at least paid some attention to it, in part through 3rd party analyses I suppose. I just find it interesting that the Leader’s vision of the future draws no comment from Party supporters - in fact not even comments on the 3rd party views until yours.

From that one can only deduce it’s vanilla, or they want a different direction. I suspect someone like BG would prefer a return to the (shall we say) ‘further left’ wing of the party, others may be more moderate. But why is Sir Keir’s vision not worthy of comment by Labour supporters - even when prompted? Strange.
 
I’ve never voted labour (or Tory), but broadly support the policies that Starmer has outlined so far, whilst never failing to be amazed at the general incompetence of this government and its’ chump of a leader. Therefore if I were a floating voter I should be gravitating towards Labour, and yet, right on cue, he decides that now is the time to take on the party hierarchy over future leader selection policy, and on the very eve of the party conference where the opportunity to unite the party and spell out clear policy for the future was at its’ greatest. I think this is an own goal of historic proportions, which must have Tories rubbing their hands in glee.

He needs to use the Wednesday speech to get a grip, concentrate on the key issues of housing, jobs, healthcare and economic recovery, and start convincing the majority of the electorate, many of whom are unaware of his existence, that there is a better alternative future than this shambles. I’m not holding my breath.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mike E
Sep 6, 2006
11,375
300
Labour ceased to represent the workers a long time ago. I used to be hard core Labour.

Starmer on the Andrew Marr show this morning saying its wrong to say only women have a cervix WTF ?

Labour today are the benefits and immigrants party, waiting in the wings to spend loads of money we dont have. All based on the idea that we are one of the richest nations, a dubious idea, based on GDP.

GDP is a measurement of all financial transactions including property sales, multiplied by velocity, so fill the country up with immigration ( all parties do this to be fair ) and ramp up house prices and rents, voila, GDP soars. Except everyone is worse off with wage suppression and high accommodation charges.
With a lax interest rate policy ( continued by the Cons ) Brown made sure home ownership would become unnaffordable to the average worker, hoping to increase the client state of the Labour Party by disenfranchising a generation from property ownership whilst his wealthier public sector voter boomer mates gobbled up all the first time buyer property for buy to let.
He also abolished the lowest rate tax band of 10 pence around 2008, increasing the tax take on the poorest workers I remember a mate saying he would never vote Labour again on the back of that, and thats when the penny started to drop for me. His crowning glory was deregulating banking whilst London was the centre of the Credit Derivative market, that market blew up and nearly took down the world financial systerm in 2008, and will take it down by 2030's.
Then they left Britain skint. Look at borrowing during the Osbourne era, UK had to borrow more cash in 10 years than we had borrowed in the previous 300 to pay for a scaled back version of the Labour agenda. Now people called that "Austerity" and they may have their reasons, but really the question I have is how much do you think the government should have borrowed then ? And if you think taxing the better off should have been the way forward, taxing the rich and the corporations more does not really much increase the tax take, its been well demonstrated. When A. Darling increased the tax on the richest earners to 50p in the pound ( thats higher than communist China ) it did not increase HMRC revenues on balance. look at all the skint socialist regimes like France and Spain, they try that tactic and end up with 40 -50 % youth unemployment.
Look at Ireland that was nearly a third world country in the 70's ( i am of Irish extraction ), they DECREASED corp tax, next thing you know all the biggies, eventually even microsoft, apple , disney, all want to do business in Ireland, inside 30 years people were leaving the UK to get a job in Ireland.
At least Bozo made sure the minimum wage went up above inflation and moved the tax threshold up to 12.5 k, about 25% higher than where it was under Labour. Thats the sort of action workers wanted to see.
People took note of the Labour partys slide into a racist, rich hating, communist disgrace and given the choice between a posh blond haired liar offering to restore soveriegnty and democracy and a Marxist terrorist lover, voted accordingly.
The current govt are a shambles in my opinion, the big issue facing us for some time ( about 20 years ) is energy policy and they are failing to get real. Labour also ignorant in this area. We need nuclear and we need it yesterday.
We need coal fired back up if required. We need a new grid. There is right now a possibility of print and spend on INFRASTRUCTURE not benefits, but soon that window will close, eg when America ceases printing or when the bond market says we want more intrest payments. From that point on, govts cant really borrow. The implications are grim.
I do have an interest in economics, I have to say the future for the West is dire, a lot to do with currency debasement and lack of a long term energy strategy, and the erosion of democracy. But hey, apparently now we all have cervixes so everythings fine.
.
And who introduced the min wage in the first place?. Clue not the Tories. And who started deregulation of The City(remember Big Bang?)? Clue Not Labour. And who massively promoted Right to buy policies devasting Council Housing stock? Clue Not Labour
But its all Labour's fault according to you especially of course the WORLDWIDE financial crash. This how successfully Tories spin their failures helped by their media chums resulting in people voting against their own interests including you it seems. If you think Labour are NOT the party of the working man do you really think the Tories ARE?!
 
Oct 9, 2003
3,559
35
Aberdeen
And who introduced the min wage in the first place?. Clue not the Tories. And who started deregulation of The City(remember Big Bang?)? Clue Not Labour. And who massively promoted Right to buy policies devasting Council Housing stock? Clue Not Labour
But its all Labour's fault according to you especially of course the WORLDWIDE financial crash. This how successfully Tories spin their failures helped by their media chums resulting in people voting against their own interests including you it seems. If you think Labour are NOT the party of the working man do you really think the Tories ARE?!

But what about now and the future for Labour? Genuinely interested to hear what you think about Starmer’s future plan but you seem somehow reluctant?
 
Aug 12, 2010
574
17
South Wales

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13032013

 
Sep 6, 2006
11,375
300

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13032013

Ah yes explains it all. A Daily Express reader!!! As I only just said the Tores 'media chums'. Brown didn't actually say that did he? Unlike the Express to get it wrong!!! Course the pro regulation Tories would have been very different.... Oh wait a minute
 
  • Like
Reactions: Old Gunner
Nov 15, 2011
1,745
149
I’ve seen some previous express headlines recently like “Boris clinches U.K. / US trade deal” “Brexit will bring down U.K. energy bills “ Boris promises cheaper food prices after Brexit “ Eu bureaucrats to make U.K. put out SEVEN bins per week “ and “Brexit lies exposed mobile roaming charges WONT come back for Brits travelling abroad “, oh and “foodbanks could disappear as food prices fall post brexit “

The express isn’t a newspaper it’s a Pravda like government comic for Johnson to publish his daily lies via client journalists and for cult followers lap up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mike E
Jan 20, 2004
722
19
I’ve never voted labour (or Tory), but broadly support the policies that Starmer has outlined so far, whilst never failing to be amazed at the general incompetence of this government and its’ chump of a leader. Therefore if I were a floating voter I should be gravitating towards Labour, and yet, right on cue, he decides that now is the time to take on the party hierarchy over future leader selection policy, and on the very eve of the party conference where the opportunity to unite the party and spell out clear policy for the future was at its’ greatest. I think this is an own goal of historic proportions, which must have Tories rubbing their hands in glee.

He needs to use the Wednesday speech to get a grip, concentrate on the key issues of housing, jobs, healthcare and economic recovery, and start convincing the majority of the electorate, many of whom are unaware of his existence, that there is a better alternative future than this shambles. I’m not holding my breath.
Likewise, I have never voted Conservative or Labour as neither party represent my generally centrist / environmentalist views. So for Frank's benefit this 'Leftie' has better things to do.

Labour would only interest me if they weren't controlled by the unions and wholeheartedly supported Proportioal Representation.
 
Oct 9, 2003
3,559
35
Aberdeen
But Mike, I read it because I have generally centrist views (leaning to the right) and am generally not happy with this government. I wanted to know what Starmer had to say purporting to be a more moderate form of Labour and trying to sideline the radicals like Momentum.

Ave_IT uses the phrase 12000 words which sounds a lot. I’d say 20 odd pages (minus the fluff) of easy reading in fairly large print. It really isn’t taxing (no pun intended 😁), and the Fabian Society even has a ‘key points’ executive summary.

My point is twofold really:

1. I’m intrigued why the Leader’s bold (as claimed) new vision doesn’t interest his natural following.

2. And if we as the voting public don’t take an interest in what they have to say, you’re really making decisions based on what others have to say about it (media, and even worse social media). There‘s always been media influence of course, sometimes famously, but folks posting here are political observers any yet there is little or no interest.

So, in the general vacuum I’ll offer a theory. I think there’s at least one here, maybe more, who isn't represented by Starmer’s Labour. They see him as a threat to what the Momentum types achieved under Corbyn. Who knows, maybe he just looks and sounds a bit too much like a Tory. But in general, and for most, maybe Starmer is just a bit boring. Maybe there’s no expectation that his vision would be ‘bold’ and therefore ambivalence reigns.

And that, to the point of this thread, is Labour’s big problem IMO. This country will never elect a far left programme, yet the alternative approach is just boring. So to mervyn’s often held view, only the Tories can grant Labour power by cocking things up themselves (and to be fair they’re trying quite hard).
 
Aug 12, 2010
574
17
South Wales
Browns creation. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/jun/02/fsa-credit-crunch-tripartite-system

From the article.
The financial regulatory system set up by Gordon Brown in 1997 has been heavily criticised by an influential House of Lords committee and a former Bank of England director for failing to prevent the financial crisis.

The House of Lords economics affairs committee said the Tripartite Authority – which comprises the Bank of England, the Treasury and the Financial Services Authority – failed to protect Britain's financial system when the credit crunch struck in 2007.



The FSA was created in the first year of the Labour government, when Brown was chancellor of the exchequer.

Sir Martin Jacomb, a former Bank of England director, has claimed that this "disastrous" decision was driven by jealousy within the Treasury and a desire to rein in the central bank's power.
 
Jul 15, 2006
3,848
40
Kenton, Devon
Starmer's pre-conference essay 'The Road Ahead' has been out for a day or two now. Anyone taken the time to digest it? Any commentary? Anyone bothered?

I've taken a cursory glance and it seems a bit 'vanilla' to me. I know Iain Watson of the BBC has written a corresponding article on the risks ahead for Starmer - the Far Left have been making noises again with McCluskey and McDonnell prominent recently.

Only just seen your post Frank. To be honest, I don't know why Starmer bothered - there was nothing new in it, and it read like an essay from a person who had no real idea on how to move Labour forward. I'm not blaming Starmer entirely for this - for me Labour is facing an existential crisis right now, and I can't see how they get out of this mess they're in.

I've cut Starmer a lot of slack since he took over the helm of the party. I agree with his intention to try and move the party to a more centralist (and therefore more palatable ... and more electable) position ... because, at the end of the day, the most important thing it to get the Tories out of power. But, that aside, I'm struggling to see if he has a realistic vision of how to lead Labour to a General Election win and how to win over the voters. It isn't enough to say "this is what we stand for", what he needs is a detailed of what would be different and how Labour will achieve it (although it was interesting to hear this morning the proposed changes to business rates for small businesses and - more importantly - some of the ideas they have on how it would work).

I am absolutely certain that Labour are facing a real existential crisis right now. This Tory Government is an absolute shambles: they're a joke filled with political lightweights who really aren't very good politicians. Labour should be creaming them in the polls, but they're not. They have to stop this political infighting and put forward a united front. And this won't happen until certain factions within the party realise that they're out of touch with the electorate and are fighting battles which much of the electorate cannot identify with.
 
Nov 15, 2011
1,745
149
Browns creation. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/jun/02/fsa-credit-crunch-tripartite-system

From the article.
The financial regulatory system set up by Gordon Brown in 1997 has been heavily criticised by an influential House of Lords committee and a former Bank of England director for failing to prevent the financial crisis.

The House of Lords economics affairs committee said the Tripartite Authority – which comprises the Bank of England, the Treasury and the Financial Services Authority – failed to protect Britain's financial system when the credit crunch struck in 2007.



The FSA was created in the first year of the Labour government, when Brown was chancellor of the exchequer.

Sir Martin Jacomb, a former Bank of England director, has claimed that this "disastrous" decision was driven by jealousy within the Treasury and a desire to rein in the central bank's power.
I'm not sure what this has got to do with "Are Labour Getting it Right?", going back to 2009 nevertheless some obvious points to make.

The Global Financial Crash emanated from the sub prime mortgage market collapse in the US , the ripples spread throughout the world - the film The Big Short wonderfully documents how and why and those who saw it coming. Did Gordon Brown's borrowing and investing in infrastructure, schools and hospitals, and relaxing FSA rules contribute to this in the UK? Yes. Otherwise he was a brilliantly competent chancellor.

He left the country with a debt of less than a trillion. It's now even pre Covid over 2 trillion ie more than DOUBLED in the name of austerity to sort out Labour's mess. ie the Tories have more than doubled the national debt, increased it by more than every Labour Government in history COMBINED. So Brown while dealing with the Global crash increased the national debt LESS than this lot and even managed to build schools and hospitals. This lot have managed to increase the debt MORE whilst at the same time cutting public spending to the bone taking policeman off the streets and nurses and doctors out of the NHS. I mean how do you even do that? Maybe as a result of the richest getting hugely richer whilst at the same time paying less tax.
 
Aug 12, 2010
574
17
South Wales
MKF your observations on conservative spending and immigration are not unreasonable. With labour spending a lot of it was done via PFI so it did not show up as national debt. Still has to be paid for though ( and at much higher cost than borrowing through normal channels ). as do Gordons promises which the cons found politically impossible to roll back. See the "prudence to profligacy " link above.
The cons being a shambles of a govt currently does not make Labour OK to my mind, which is what this thread is about and I am not likely to vote for them.
 
Last edited:
Oct 9, 2003
3,559
35
Aberdeen
Only just seen your post Frank. To be honest, I don't know why Starmer bothered - there was nothing new in it, and it read like an essay from a person who had no real idea on how to move Labour forward. I'm not blaming Starmer entirely for this - for me Labour is facing an existential crisis right now, and I can't see how they get out of this mess they're in.

I've cut Starmer a lot of slack since he took over the helm of the party. I agree with his intention to try and move the party to a more centralist (and therefore more palatable ... and more electable) position ... because, at the end of the day, the most important thing it to get the Tories out of power. But, that aside, I'm struggling to see if he has a realistic vision of how to lead Labour to a General Election win and how to win over the voters. It isn't enough to say "this is what we stand for", what he needs is a detailed of what would be different and how Labour will achieve it (although it was interesting to hear this morning the proposed changes to business rates for small businesses and - more importantly - some of the ideas they have on how it would work).

I am absolutely certain that Labour are facing a real existential crisis right now. This Tory Government is an absolute shambles: they're a joke filled with political lightweights who really aren't very good politicians. Labour should be creaming them in the polls, but they're not. They have to stop this political infighting and put forward a united front. And this won't happen until certain factions within the party realise that they're out of touch with the electorate and are fighting battles which much of the electorate cannot identify with.

Thanks Quinny. Pretty much agree with every word of that.
 
Nov 15, 2011
1,745
149
MKF your observations on conservative spending and immigration are not unreasonable. With labour spending a lot of it was done via PFI so it did not show up as national debt. Still has to be paid for though ( and at much higher cost than borrowing through normal channels ). as do Gordons promises which the cons found politically impossible to roll back. See the "prudence to profligacy " link above.
The cons being a shambles of a govt currently does not make Labour OK to my mind, which is what this thread is about and I am not likely to vote for them.
Well this is very confusing.

You appear to concede that Brown's spending and management of the national debt was far better than the Tories , which actually isn't an opinion that's just counting even adjusting for PFI.

Otherwise you said, "Labour today are the benefits and immigrants party, waiting in the wings to spend loads of money we dont have."

Well again you've just conceded that the Tories are by far the party of immigration not even trying to control it. Even under Blair there was never any immigration like in 2020. Last year there was NET non EU immigration of over 300,000, equal to a city bigger than Plymouth, the highest figure ever, not one person had to be let in and overwhelmingly unskilled from the 3rd world. I know the Express would never admit this but the Home Office do , what do you think of that?

And as for spending money we don't have, again Labour has never increased the national debt like this lot have. That's just a fact.

As for benefits, agreed the Labour Party wouldn't snatch the £20 UC off the poorest people in the country leaving 1.5 million families having to choose between feeding their children or heating their homes.