Keir Starmer, yearly review

Are you suggesting a federal system with public ownership?

What would you do about services such as national railways, which operate across a number of regions?

ronib

growstuff

ronib That list was what Blair promised.

I misread ….

That's what I thought.

growstuff

Are you suggesting a federal system with public ownership?

What would you do about services such as national railways, which operate across a number of regions?

Other utilities like water and energy?

Do I wish the LP was more dynamic? yes
Do I wish Starmer was more inspiring? yes
Will I vote Labour? yes

What happened here was we got a lot of ‘teals’ being voted in. People who belonged to neither of the two main parties. Mainly because the voters wanted to show both the main parties that they didn’t like what they stood for. Quite dangerous in some respects because these people lack political experience and are often one trick ponies with an axe to grind.

vegansrock

Do I wish the LP was more dynamic? yes
Do I wish Starmer was more inspiring? yes
Will I vote Labour? yes

My problem with listening to Kier Starmer is that he sounds and looks exhausted. He has an exasperated whine as his first line of expression, maybe he is doing ‘sincere’. I try very hard to overcome this barrier but then his frown throws me.
Rishi Sunak, Liz Truss and Boris Johnson also had me reaching for the remote switch. There’s a cult of personality in politics that obscures the message and vision if there is one.
Tony Blair had an appealing delivery and public persona but ……
I like the idea of a written ten or more point plan as that neutralises a poor delivery and gives a better insight into policies.

I want him to focus on the key issues - crises, public services, cost of living, economic growth - not marginalia.

Whitewavemark2

growstuff

Are you suggesting a federal system with public ownership?

What would you do about services such as national railways, which operate across a number of regions?

Other utilities like water and energy?

I was asked why I don't you think nationalised public services would help. I haven't suddenly formed a party or joined one nor do I believe I have all the answers. I was asked for my opinion and I gave it.

I have no problem that natural monopolies work across county. Communities can cope with working locally and with a bigger grid. But, as I said, this is just my opinion. No one has to agree or disagree.

And then there is MMT. I don't think that came from the right. Jeremy Corbyn was in favour of it, I believe.

I missed this yesterday, DaisyAnne, probably because I don't always pay much attention to your self justifying posts.

I will point out, yet again, that MMT is politically neutral. It is merely an evidence based account of how any government finances work if the country has a sovereign currency. It is descriptive, not prescriptive. A government can use its ability to create money for any purpose it wants to, be it right or left wing, and governments have been doing so for decades.

www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/sites/bartlett_public_purpose/files/the_self-financing_state_an_institutional_analysis_of_government_expenditure_revenue_collection_and_debt_issuance_operations_in_the_united_kingdom.pdf

DaisyAnne

Whitewavemark2

growstuff

Are you suggesting a federal system with public ownership?

What would you do about services such as national railways, which operate across a number of regions?

Other utilities like water and energy?

I was asked why I don't you think nationalised public services would help. I haven't suddenly formed a party or joined one nor do I believe I have all the answers. I was asked for my opinion and I gave it.

I have no problem that natural monopolies work across county. Communities can cope with working locally and with a bigger grid. But, as I said, this is just my opinion. No one has to agree or disagree.

Why so defensive? I was trying to clarify what you actually meant and how it could work.

Echo your sentiments entirely. I think he is trying to appease the right wing voters. They would hate a future pm to spend money on public services. I just hope he gets the chance to prove the doubters wrong.

There’s a headline in todays Guardian which sums it up. It’s along the lines of ‘Starmer trying to balance inspiring [left leaning] and not scaring [right-leaning] voters’.

I hope he’s succeeding at the latter, because he’s sadly not inspiring me or most left-of-centre voters I know.

Yes trying to appease the right wing voters and right wing in the party, hacking of members accounts suspending the left even Jews Odd way to run a party.

Going back on pledge of not using private sector in NHS
Wes took donations from donors who have private health interests

I’d consider myself as slightly right if centre, but apolitical as regards party affiliation. I see the ‘big chequebook’ comment being more a recognition of there not being the funds available to buy away the current issues. Covid cost us dearly in terms of extra spending at a time when govt coffers were only just refilling after being found depleted after the handover from Brown to Cameron.
To me, a.n.other person, I feel we need to constrain wider spending on the nice-to-have stuff and focus on health, care and support until the current crisis is over. I would add that the world is feeling the effect of covid and the world suffering an energy cost crisis. Our problems are not all made by our current govt alone.

Quite, ExperiencedNotOld Brexit has cost us more than covid or the war in Ukraine.

The backers of Brexit such as Aaron Banks, Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump are not in the current government but many of the Brexit backers are.

I see the ‘big chequebook’ comment being more a recognition of there not being the funds available to buy away the current issues

I'm afraid, ExperiencedNotOld that both you and Starmer are wrong. In our current state only state spending is going to save us from a deep recession.

Many of our current problems with public services stem from the deep cuts that the tories made to public spending after 2010 because they were perpetrating the same myth that a government has a limited amount of money. It doesn't. It can create money at will.

I've been following the thread about Sunak's dead cat bright idea that all children should study maths until they are 18. Perhaps they should because we seem to have an awful lot of people who can't put 2 and 2 together to make 4.

If a government removes too much money from the economy it makes people poorer and slows growth. State investment sustains growth and keeps the economy healthy.

MaizieD

^I see the ‘big chequebook’ comment being more a recognition of there not being the funds available to buy away the current issues^

I'm afraid, ExperiencedNotOld that both you and Starmer are wrong. In our current state only state spending is going to save us from a deep recession.

Many of our current problems with public services stem from the deep cuts that the tories made to public spending after 2010 because they were perpetrating the same myth that a government has a limited amount of money. It doesn't. It can create money at will.

I've been following the thread about Sunak's dead cat bright idea that all children should study maths until they are 18. Perhaps they should because we seem to have an awful lot of people who can't put 2 and 2 together to make 4.

If a government removes too much money from the economy it makes people poorer and slows growth. State investment sustains growth and keeps the economy healthy.

I don’t think you’re wholly right in what you say either MaizieD. Throwing state funding at public services is not going to resolve all the issues, so in itself it’s not the panacea you are implying. It’s not just about growing the economy.
I think that Starmer has far more of a grasp of what needs to be done than you’re giving him credit for, and he has good brains advising him - the other quality he has that so many purists lack is pragmatism.

Throwing state funding at public services is not going to resolve all the issues,

I hardly call it 'throwing' state funding at public services to attempt to restore their funding to anything like what it was when the tories started their fund cutting rampage post 2010 Casdon. There was no need for it at all.

Restore the funding, get the services into a better state than they are now, then start looking at any reforms that might be needed.

If it isn't done we will be in deep recession.

Neoliberal monetary economics aren't the only players in the game. Heard of Keynes?

What alternative would you suggest?

P.S I've no problem with pragmatism, I've a problem with the opposition promising to take the country even further down hill.

Casdon

MaizieD

I see the ‘big chequebook’ comment being more a recognition of there not being the funds available to buy away the current issues

I'm afraid, ExperiencedNotOld that both you and Starmer are wrong. In our current state only state spending is going to save us from a deep recession.

Many of our current problems with public services stem from the deep cuts that the tories made to public spending after 2010 because they were perpetrating the same myth that a government has a limited amount of money. It doesn't. It can create money at will.

I've been following the thread about Sunak's dead cat bright idea that all children should study maths until they are 18. Perhaps they should because we seem to have an awful lot of people who can't put 2 and 2 together to make 4.

If a government removes too much money from the economy it makes people poorer and slows growth. State investment sustains growth and keeps the economy healthy.

I don’t think you’re wholly right in what you say either MaizieD. Throwing state funding at public services is not going to resolve all the issues, so in itself it’s not the panacea you are implying. It’s not just about growing the economy.
I think that Starmer has far more of a grasp of what needs to be done than you’re giving him credit for, and he has good brains advising him - the other quality he has that so many purists lack is pragmatism.

Which is why I guess Starmer said that money isn't the only answer and some things need to be done differently. Hmm ...

Who are you agreeing with, growstuff, me or Casdon?

MaizieD

Who are you agreeing with, growstuff, me or Casdon?

Neither really. Just commenting on why I think he said what he did.

I'm not a mind-reader, but I suspect he's saying what he thinks people want to hear. I guess the majority of people are cynical about governments spending their way out of crises because they don't understand MMT. I well remember the reaction to Corbyn's last minute promises before the last election. "But how are they going to pay for it?" the red tops screeched. Labour politicians kept being asked how they would fund anything and they weren't very good with their answers. My guess is that Starmer wants to be seen as the leader in waiting who knows what he's doing. (Not saying I think he's right - just guessing.)

I think (hope) what he'll do is spend more on public services, but try to reassure people that it's going to be money well-spent and take on the people who claim they spend too much on management, they're run by unions, etc.

growstuff

DaisyAnne

Whitewavemark2

growstuff

Are you suggesting a federal system with public ownership?

What would you do about services such as national railways, which operate across a number of regions?

Other utilities like water and energy?

I was asked why I don't you think nationalised public services would help. I haven't suddenly formed a party or joined one nor do I believe I have all the answers. I was asked for my opinion and I gave it.

I have no problem that natural monopolies work across county. Communities can cope with working locally and with a bigger grid. But, as I said, this is just my opinion. No one has to agree or disagree.

Why so defensive? I was trying to clarify what you actually meant and how it could work.

Why do you have to be so negative? What are you afraid of? I wasn't being defensive. I thought the way I was questioned was pretty rude but that I should reply to be polite.

At that point my daughter arrived as I was taking her out for a birthday (hers) lunch. We have just got back.

Anything else you want to know?

Pardon? Your post seemed defensive (even aggressive) to me.

Look in a mirror if you want to see rude questioning.

Have a lovely day!