Labour party conference, is no-one else interested?

I mean the opportunity to hold this governnment to account, which you can't do if your policies pretty much match theirs.
Votes are won by offering an alternative not by telling people things will stay the same. Why isn't the LP pointing out how much public money has been funnelled into private businesses in order to keep the imaginary competetive market functioning in both the energy and rail sectors? Because they are actually proposing to keep the same system.

Funny how asking a simple question is seen as attacking someone. I must remember even if I am posting quickly on my way out to mind my ps and qs or PippaZ will chastise me (although why it is OK for her to have a go at me but I have to phrase my questions carefully I don't know.)

I think you are making the assumption trisher that a Labour party has to stand for public ownership. In my mind public ownership is the right thing, but I think I have to accept that this may not be the appropriate thing at this time.

As I understand it, Starmer isn't saying the things you want to hear about public ownership, and other things too, I'm sure, and for that you consider that he isn't "proper" Labour and is taking the party down a route you don't approve of?

Right now, I just want someone to offer an alternative to the Tories, they don't have to be perfect and they don't have to adhere to what I think a "proper" Labour government should be.

I am of course speaking as a non-Labour voter, but mine is the view of a person who is interested in politics but doesn't care if the party I vote for isn't perfect, they just have to be good.

I simply don't see the point of an opposition that doesn't oppose anything Alegrias1. It effectively makes us a one party state. I can't think of a time when public ownership was more appropriate-£3.5 bn for rail companies £374million for buses. All from the public purse into the pockets of shareholders

so what is the alternative trisher? Again, you have a simple choice at the moment- left of centre, or far right.

I'll go for left of Centre for sure. And, again, to say that Labour under Starmer is not much different to Cons with Johnson and ERG is utter and dangerous nonsense.

Does Starmer stand for privatisation of the NHS? Really?

Massive tax evasion by the richest? Really?

The running down of good schools and public education? Really?

more privatisation of roads, sell offs of essential untilities and services? Really?

The demonisation of immigration and hatred of foreigners?

the list is endless.

And after a very long time, I am losing all respect for the Labour left, determined to divide- and let them rule and destroy, again and much more.

I say how Corbyn was mistrated, maligned and mis-judged by the Cons and the associated Press. It was shameful. I also agreed he is a good man, sincere, and a great campaigner- but I also saw that he was NOT PM material- and yet, even so, I did vote Labour at last election. But unless the Party unites behind its Leader- then not again. Divided Labour will mean a return of Johnson, well probably someone else- his days are numbered... someone else pushing the extreme Brexit and privatisation, tax evasion and worse, of the ERG.

If this is what you want- then (yes I have said it many times before) I truly despair. I shall blame the Labour Left probably even more than those dreadful Cons - because they could have averted it, and they chose not to.

trisher

I simply don't see the point of an opposition that doesn't oppose anything Alegrias1. It effectively makes us a one party state. I can't think of a time when public ownership was more appropriate-£3.5 bn for rail companies £374million for buses. All from the public purse into the pockets of shareholders

But we virtually have a one party state becauseLabour(ie Corbyn) lost the last election so catastrophically that it resulted in a dictatorship.

Kali2

so what is the alternative trisher? Again, you have a simple choice at the moment- left of centre, or far right.

I'll go for left of Centre for sure. And, again, to say that Labour under Starmer is not much different to Cons with Johnson and ERG is utter and dangerous nonsense.

Does Starmer stand for privatisation of the NHS? Really?

Massive tax evasion by the richest? Really?

The running down of good schools and public education? Really?

more privatisation of roads, sell offs of essential untilities and services? Really?

The demonisation of immigration and hatred of foreigners?

the list is endless.

And after a very long time, I am losing all respect for the Labour left, determined to divide- and let them rule and destroy, again and much more.

I say how Corbyn was mistrated, maligned and mis-judged by the Cons and the associated Press. It was shameful. I also agreed he is a good man, sincere, and a great campaigner- but I also saw that he was NOT PM material- and yet, even so, I did vote Labour at last election. But unless the Party unites behind its Leader- then not again. Divided Labour will mean a return of Johnson, well probably someone else- his days are numbered... someone else pushing the extreme Brexit and privatisation, tax evasion and worse, of the ERG.

If this is what you want- then (yes I have said it many times before) I truly despair. I shall blame the Labour Left probably even more than those dreadful Cons - because they could have averted it, and they chose not to.

Kali2 Starmer hasn't actually spoken out about privatisation of the NHS and one of the biggest donors to his Labour Together movement was a private healthcare lobbyist
twitter.com/FrancesNaggs/status/1415190780298334210?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1415190780298334210%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fvoxpoliticalonline.com%2F2021%2F07%2F15%2Freactions-to-nhs-privatisation-bill-scream-how-bad-it-is-no-comment-from-starmer-though%2F
He hasn't said he would tax the rich to pay for social care www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/04/pressure-grows-on-starmer-to-back-tax-on-rich-to-pay-for-social-care
He will probably maintain the Ac ademy system started by Blair.
He certainly hasn't committed to public ownership
He wouldn't support refugees and the right to claim asylum and he has said immigration should be reduced www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-channel-crossings-labour-revolt-refugees-migrants-a9682061.html
In fact it's difficult to see what is Labour about him.

Even if that is so (and I do NOT believe it is)

WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE ?

The Labour left will NOT win. It didn't under Foot, and not under Corbyn, and it won't under an of them.

At THIS stage, with the diabolical situation these current Tories/ERG have put us in- there is only ONE way forward, and it is to unite, ally with others, face the demons of FPTP system- and GET RID OF THEM. Nothing else matters at this stage.

You arent listening kali, winning is not a priority at all.

Kali2 You are absolutely right. Labour will not win if the more extreme left gain control.

I agree with your comments about Corbyn and voted for him and my Labour candidate in the last election. He was very good at hustings but dreadful when it came to media interviews. He showed irritation with interviewers even if they weren't giving him a hard time. It looked bad.

Until we know the state of public finances Starmer can't make promises to re-nationalise utilities and public transport. Listening to some comments today about the Tory conference Sunak is already talking about the National Debt and, I think, signalling a return to austerity. If Starmer talks now about public spending he is likely to deter many of those voters who believed the nonsense talked and written about the last LP proposals. At the last GE many ordinary working class people did not believe that the proposals were fully costed. furthermore, people didn't believe that Corbyn could actually carry out all his proposals. I think that free broadband for everyone was a nail in his coffin.

If Starmer talks now about public spending he is likely to deter many of those voters who believed the nonsense talked and written about the last LP proposals. At the last GE many ordinary working class people did not believe that the proposals were fully costed. furthermore, people didn't believe that Corbyn could actually carry out all his proposals.

I cannot understand that the 'far left' don't seem to understand that to get into power they *mustn't scare the voters'. And Labour spending proposals, however well 'costed' scare them rigid.

I will say, yet again, taxation doesn't fund spending, economists know that but a large proportion of the electorate, and the commentariat, are convinced that they do.* They will all agree with Sunak that we have a huge debt to repay (remind me again, who do we 'owe' it too?) and embrace recessionary austerity with stoicism. Labour will not get any brownie points if they challenge this narrative.

(*The only Labour MP I know of that understands that taxation doesn't fund spending and says it out loud is Clive Lewis...)

MaizieD I've seen you say a few times that tax doesn't fund spending. I am a true economics illiterate (innumerate?). Do you have a link to something that explains this please? I'm not doubting you, I just want to understand.

I am struggling to understand how some of the Labour Left pipe dreams could happen in reality, I think Starmer and team have looked closely into the options and realised that in the present climate it is unaffordable. I don’t believe he thinks the current system is ideal by any means, but he is a pragmatist. Can you explain how you think utilities companies could be renationalised in one parliamentary term trisher?

Alegrias1

MaizieD I've seen you say a few times that tax doesn't fund spending. I am a true economics illiterate (innumerate?). Do you have a link to something that explains this please? I'm not doubting you, I just want to understand.

It's all to do with Modern Monetary Theory. 'Theory' is a bad name for it, because it is a description of how governments are funded if they have a sovereign currency. (so it doesn't apply if a country has a shared currency, like the euro)

I first heard about it via Richard Murphy's blog ( www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/ ) and was very dubious but having looked into it and read other sources it makes absolute sense.

The first link takes you to a page of links to resources. ( I like the little video, The Millennial's Money)

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2020/04/08/modern-monetary-theory-resources/

This one takes you to an explanation of the role of taxation.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2019/05/10/pretty-much-all-that-most-people-need-to-know-about-modern-monetary-theory/

If you google Modern Monetary Theory there is loads on it, both pro and anti

The thing about it is that it is completely apolitical. Governments can issue a sovereign currency but how they spend it is an ideological choice. In corrupt regimes it can lead to hyperinflation because it isn't controlled by taxation. In other situations, such as Roosevelt's New Deal it can boost the economy..

Many people think it's Keynesianism, but it different in that when Keynes was working money supply was constrained by the fact that the gold standard existed ; spending in excess of the value of gold reserves was trouble. The gold standard was abolished in 1971 (or 2). There is no longer that constraint on the amount of money a government can issue.

Anyway. See what you think..

Thanks MaizieD - some light reading for me for later. I'll get back to you!

Kali2 in 2017 in spite of people in the LP office working against it the LP almost came to power with left wing policies. At the time people working in the office did their best to prevent this, diverting money which should have been spent in marginal seats and undermining the leadership. That election was lost through the Labour right wing, not the left. Those people are still working in the LP offices. You could say they are responsible for the present Tory government. So why blame the left wing and policies? Only because it suits your prejudices.
In fact this government has already renatonalised the railways they are just keeping very quiet about it
That is why we now propose the biggest change to the railways in 25 years, ending the fragmentation of the past and bringing the network under single national leadership. A new public body, Great British Railways, will own the infrastructure, receive the fare revenue, run and plan the network and set most fares and timetables. Network Rail, the current infrastructure owner, will be absorbed into this new organisation, as will many functions from the Rail Delivery Group and Department for Transport.
Taken from assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/994603/gbr-williams-shapps-plan-for-rail.pdf
But hey it's a crazy left wing Labour plan isn't it????

How Can Labour Win? - Does Starmer have a strategy? Will it work? What is the alternative?

Started watching this talk might have some answers
m.youtube.com/watch?v=tbqgBMsWVVY&t=434s

I predict that the left will be saying ‘we would have won in 2017 if…’ for time immemorial. It didn’t happen because people didn’t vote Labour, and only two years later was the worst election defeat ever.
Starmer is a very sensible man. He wants Labour to be in power. He will only propose to do what is practical, and will not subscribe to visions, strategies, plans or pipe dreams without making sure they are achievable. Remember the accuracy check on his conference speech. If him not lying isn’t what you want, you’re not in the right party. The world has moved on, we aren’t living in a socialist utopia, because the population won’t vote for it - but many of us do want a fairer society, including him.

Sorry trisher- you totally misunderstand what I am saying.

And totally refuse to accept the realities of FPTP system. Even if you or I believe that the labour left policies are correct and the best plan ahead- they will not win. So what then ...

The alternative is ... ?

So no comments on the nationalisation of the railways which I don't think people voted for either, it certainly wasn't offered in the manifesto and it has been kept very quiet.

As for ignoring the 2017 result what I gather from that is it is OK for the right on the party to cause disruption and even failure but the left just have to keep quiet, because they will keep the Tories in power. The same Tories who were put there by the right.

This is NOT what I said.

I am talking about the realities of the FPTP system- it is all that matter now. Because unless this is accepted, Labour can't win. And Labour won't be able to change anything- but watch the destruction from behind the side lines. If that is the aim ... then

I despair.

The red wall voters put the Tories in power didn’t they? Or am I missing something here. All of my left of centre Labour supporting friends voted Labour.

MayBee70

trisher

I simply don't see the point of an opposition that doesn't oppose anything Alegrias1. It effectively makes us a one party state. I can't think of a time when public ownership was more appropriate-£3.5 bn for rail companies £374million for buses. All from the public purse into the pockets of shareholders

But we virtually have a one party state becauseLabour(ie Corbyn) lost the last election so catastrophically that it resulted in a dictatorship.

Suggest you live in Belarus to see what dictatorship is like.

Galaxy

You arent listening kali, winning is not a priority at all.

Then they don't deserve to be in power.

This is what Wikipedia says:

‘In September 2020, the Government permanently got rid of the rail franchising system.[86] On 20 May 2021, the Government announced a white paper that would transform the operation of the railways. The rail network will be partly renationalised, with infrastructure and operations brought together under a new company Great British Railways. Operations will be managed on a concessions model. According to the BBC, this represents the largest shake-up in the UK's railways since privatisation.[86] The Guardian called the new model "simplified, but still substantially privatised".[87]’

So, not full privatisation, but the lines and operations will be nationalised, which should remedy a lot of the failures in service. Not consulted on, but who would object?

The majority of Labour supporters are what you call the right of the party trisher. However, it was the voters of the country who put the Tories in power, with a big majority because they didn’t want a left wing government, (and were taken in by Boris). The bottom line is that you can’t force people to vote for people they don’t trust or believe can deliver for them.