What is left about Labour now?

What policies of theirs do I support? Well none so far. I just keep hoping they will come up with something.

I also don't see how there can possibly be growth without investment. Each incoming Government seems to think that "reform" is the answer without any investment.

Just if left wingers are being asked what we do want, I thought I would add my twopennorth.
Doesn't look like I'll get it from Starmer and Reeves though.

Sorry, either I wasn’t clear or you’ve misinterpreted, what I meant when I suggested you were being evasive wasn’t about your policy stance, which as you said you have relayed a number of times. it was how you see the Labour Party achieving what you want and remaining in touch with the views of the electorate. You will know from the many political threads that a lot of the policies you’d like to see aren’t by any means the main priorities for other people.
What exactly do you hope will be achieved by attempting to destroy Starmer? The reality is that if he was knocked down by the proverbial bus tomorrow, the stance of the party wouldn’t change to meet your priorities anyway.

Apologies, that was for Glorianny.

Glorianny

DaisyAnneReturns

So you have defined a negative, rather than a positive outcome. You don't want Starmer as leader of the Labour Party. That seems to be the specific outcome you hope to achieve. Have I got that right? Nothing else is more important to you?

Don't you get tired of trying to push people into corners and twist things DAR? Lots of things are important to me. Iveposted them many times. The trouble is they aren't important to Starmer.

I wonder why you are being so defensive Glorianny? I am just trying to ensure I have properly understood.

The trouble is they aren't important to Starmer. So what does that mean. You will undermine him but vote Labour? Or try and get him removed? Or vote for another another party - but who will give you what is important to you?

Casdon

Sorry, either I wasn’t clear or you’ve misinterpreted, what I meant when I suggested you were being evasive wasn’t about your policy stance, which as you said you have relayed a number of times. it was how you see the Labour Party achieving what you want and remaining in touch with the views of the electorate. You will know from the many political threads that a lot of the policies you’d like to see aren’t by any means the main priorities for other people.
What exactly do you hope will be achieved by attempting to destroy Starmer? The reality is that if he was knocked down by the proverbial bus tomorrow, the stance of the party wouldn’t change to meet your priorities anyway.

But I have posted the percentages of people who agree with public ownership of the utilities and trains.
Over 50% of the population opposed the bedroom tax in 2014.
No figures on third child benefit.

I simply think accepting Starmer is much like accepting Boris who I posted many things about including how he behaved as Mayor of London and his lying.
Is it wrong to criticise a Labour liar?

To answer the specific issues you raised Glorianny, as I don’t want to be seen as evasive myself.

Is asking that water, energy and trains are publicly owned far left?

The far left element of this is the naivety of wanting public ownership in the short term, regardless of economic consequences. I also think there should be a weighting between the different utilities, and a recognition that to put them right will take many years of additional investment by the government - it’s not possible to do everything at once.

Is wanting the bedroom tax abolished far left?

Yes, I’m sorry as I’ve got a lot of sympathy for people who were given little notice before the rules changed, but in principle I do think that people who live in state housing should not remain in family homes when their children have grown up because other people with families then can’t access that housing when they need it. I’m in favour of much more Council housing being built, with suitable homes (not flats) for single people.

Is wanting privatisation of the NHS stopped far left?

No, but there is a far left crusading element which without any apparent understanding of the reality, wants no private procedures even in the short term, which I vehemently disagree with as a stance because millions of people who need operations will continue to suffer.
Is wanting the third child legislation abolished far left?
I’m on the fence, because I think that circumstances of individuals vary so much so I think the legislation should be amended to reflect circumstance rather than being a hard and fast rule.

Is wanting proper protection for employees and zero hours contracts abolished far left?

Your most loaded question, cloaked in innocence. It’s like walking a tightrope to afford proper protection to employees whilst avoiding the gamers finding ways of playing the system. I dealt with this a lot in my work. As with most things, the left rightly stand up for the workers, but go to far in that they don’t balance the demands with the interests of the employer in getting the job done.

I’d imagine there will be different responses to every one of your questions from different people, but for me the main issue with the left is, as we’ve discussed before, the failure to compromise or be pragmatic about the need to be in power to deliver anything at all. For as long as you think you are right and are ‘the true Labour’ compromise will be impossible, and I really understand why Starmer has taken a strong line in dealing with issues head on.

Glorianny

Casdon

Sorry, either I wasn’t clear or you’ve misinterpreted, what I meant when I suggested you were being evasive wasn’t about your policy stance, which as you said you have relayed a number of times. it was how you see the Labour Party achieving what you want and remaining in touch with the views of the electorate. You will know from the many political threads that a lot of the policies you’d like to see aren’t by any means the main priorities for other people.
What exactly do you hope will be achieved by attempting to destroy Starmer? The reality is that if he was knocked down by the proverbial bus tomorrow, the stance of the party wouldn’t change to meet your priorities anyway.

But I have posted the percentages of people who agree with public ownership of the utilities and trains.
Over 50% of the population opposed the bedroom tax in 2014.
No figures on third child benefit.

I simply think accepting Starmer is much like accepting Boris who I posted many things about including how he behaved as Mayor of London and his lying.
Is it wrong to criticise a Labour liar?

Sorry, I was writing my previous response so didn’t incorporate what you said here. Your literal reading of survey results is an issue. If people are asked simple questions they answer from the gut without thinking through the consequences. Politicians who are worth their salt do that for them, and present them with solutions which improve outcomes. We all believe in motherhood and apple pie until told exactly what we have to do to get it.

Casdon - thank you for expressing my views so much more clearly than I have, or could

Good post casdon I agree with iam64

Casdon

Glorianny

Casdon

Sorry, either I wasn’t clear or you’ve misinterpreted, what I meant when I suggested you were being evasive wasn’t about your policy stance, which as you said you have relayed a number of times. it was how you see the Labour Party achieving what you want and remaining in touch with the views of the electorate. You will know from the many political threads that a lot of the policies you’d like to see aren’t by any means the main priorities for other people.
What exactly do you hope will be achieved by attempting to destroy Starmer? The reality is that if he was knocked down by the proverbial bus tomorrow, the stance of the party wouldn’t change to meet your priorities anyway.

But I have posted the percentages of people who agree with public ownership of the utilities and trains.
Over 50% of the population opposed the bedroom tax in 2014.
No figures on third child benefit.

I simply think accepting Starmer is much like accepting Boris who I posted many things about including how he behaved as Mayor of London and his lying.
Is it wrong to criticise a Labour liar?

Sorry, I was writing my previous response so didn’t incorporate what you said here. Your literal reading of survey results is an issue. If people are asked simple questions they answer from the gut without thinking through the consequences. Politicians who are worth their salt do that for them, and present them with solutions which improve outcomes. We all believe in motherhood and apple pie until told exactly what we have to do to get it.

So what you are alleging is that the population don't understand so their opinion doesn't matter.
Isn't that what democracy is really about? Trusting that people actually are able to judge issues and vote on them?
Unfortunately politicians in some cases are influenced by people with vested interests

No, what I’m alleging is that the wording of surveys and polls impacts on the results obtained, which is quite a different thing. Ask any Sociology student, it’s not my personal theory.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENDP0r4aavc

Workers' Rights: How Will a Labour Government Strengthen Your Rights?

labour.org.uk/page/a-new-deal-for-working-people/

www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT2wDbQa7jU

What are Labour's Policies on Water Services.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz7WjAEMs6U

Labour policies on NHS staffing

These are being added to once a week and I will put them up as they arrive.

DAR those are exactly the sort of waffle and misinformation that really annoy people.

No1. Really doesn't set out any clear objectives. It's the 5 missions scenario-missions are not necessarily achieved.

No2 Spends half the time telling us how bad things are- we know! Then sets out a series of fines and penalties with no clear indication of who will monitor the water companies, how responsibility will be proved or how the fines and not putting up prices will be administered.
Water should not be a profit making business

No 3 Is talking rubbish. There is an NHS long term plan on staffing www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/accessible-nhs-long-term-workforce-plan/

Apart from that he has the most irritating voice and manner.

I expect he loves you too Glorianny.

It's obvious your campaign for the left to undermine their own leader and, by extention, their Party only has one, or possibly two supporters on GN. I wonder why you think posts such as the above will get you more?

About the bedroom tax and whether it is far left:

Unless you are willing to force owner occupiers to downsize that argument does not hold water. Social tenants should be able to feel secure in their homes just as much as people who are lucky enough to own a property. Social tenants' feelings matter just as much as owner occupiers, if we are talking about sentiment.
Social tenants want to have their families to stay just as much as owner occupiers do, and why not. It is not their fault that successive Governments have sold off social housing as cut prices, without building replacements. I bet most people that voted for Tony Blair thought Labour would stop the right to buy, or at least start a big programme of building social housing again.

Apart from that, there are other reasons why people need a spare room. Dialysis machines, and special fridges for medicines should be kept in a separate room. Overnight carers or nurses should be able to have a bedroom of their own.

Separated and divorced parents need a room for their children to sleep in. They don't love their children any less than owner occupiers do.

Financially, because there are so few social homes for single people, those who are forced out of their social homes have to find properties on the private rental market, which apart from the lack of security actually cost more in rent that the social houses, so are costing more in housing benefit from the state,

DaisyAnneReturns

I expect he loves you too Glorianny.

It's obvious your campaign for the left to undermine their own leader and, by extention, their Party only has one, or possibly two supporters on GN. I wonder why you think posts such as the above will get you more?

Well I do at least know that there are ways of speaking and voicing an opinion which are more appealing (and apparently he doesn't)

I'm not undermining a party. I'm undermining a duplicitous and untrustworthy leader. The party would do much better without him.

I am waiting to hear that Streeting has ordered Starmer to appoint Boris Johnson to a safe labour seat.

About the only logical step left to appeal to unhappy Conservative voters looking for a new political home and finally sever all ties with old-fashioned labour voters like myself of working class origin, mixed race and a union member.

Yes, Vintagenonna they are trying their best to get the Conservative vote while taking longstanding Labour voters for granted.

Of course, he isn't as clever as you Glorianny; you really can't expect that! You, speaking and voicing your opinion, will always stand out from the crowd. It's such a pity he chose it as a way of making a living. He really should have come to you for advice first.

However, it is a bit odd to see what you wrote. Had you listened to even the first couple of lines of the third video, you would not, with all your mastery of debate, have written your "report" in the way you did.

So, the outcome you are aiming for, is the removal of a democratically elected leader. So that you (on your own?) may force the Labour Party to do things the way want it to.

Isn't it interesting that there are groups in Labour who feel just as entitled as the far-right Tories, to go for the possible destruction of "their" party in order, they believe, to make it do just what they want.

To me, that makes neither Party attractive or, quite possibly, worth voting for.

DaisyAnneReturns

Of course, he isn't as clever as you Glorianny; you really can't expect that! You, speaking and voicing your opinion, will always stand out from the crowd. It's such a pity he chose it as a way of making a living. He really should have come to you for advice first.

However, it is a bit odd to see what you wrote. Had you listened to even the first couple of lines of the third video, you would not, with all your mastery of debate, have written your "report" in the way you did.

So, the outcome you are aiming for, is the removal of a democratically elected leader. So that you (on your own?) may force the Labour Party to do things the way want it to.

Isn't it interesting that there are groups in Labour who feel just as entitled as the far-right Tories, to go for the possible destruction of "their" party in order, they believe, to make it do just what they want.

To me, that makes neither Party attractive or, quite possibly, worth voting for.

DAR if any democratically elected leader immediately reneges on the promises he made when he stood for election, then of course he should be removed. Even the Tories understood that.
Starmer promised- to unite the party and keep it a broad church.
to deal with anti-semitism
To support the aims and ideals of the LP.
He's done the exact opposite.

The point about the LP has always been that it is a democratic party where the members are permitted to voice their views and to have choices. That doesn't happen now. Even so if it is more likely that the party will gain power perhaps the actions taken could be acceptable. But it isn't . Starmer and his gang are making wrong choices. The Uxbridge candidate was one, Jamie Driscoll is another. As I have said before if you don't accept responsibility for a mistake and look at how it could be done better you will just go one repeating that mistake. Which means a Labour victory is far from certain.

Ilovecheese

The economist Richard Murphy has a few ideas about raising tax revenue, which he thinks is necessary, now that Rachel Reeves seems to have changed her mind about a wealth tax.
here is a quote from him
"Removing the VAT exemption from financial services could raise £8.7 billion in tax a year taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2023/09/07/removing-the-vat-exemption-from-financial-services-could-raise-8-7-billion-in-tax-a-year/ Taxing wealth more is not just about the obvious changes. It is also about removing subsidies to wealth. Removing the VAT subsidy on financial services does that."

The question is, I think, whether the current Labour leadership wants any sort of redistribution from the super rich to the rest of the country. They don't act as if they do, they seem to be relying on economic growth and so called trickle down economics, which doesn't work.

I suppose all economic theories are just that, theories, but I can't understand why Labour is choosing a theory which has failed.

Well, to your first point. Murphy has never supported a straight 'wealth tax' because, he says, it would be extremely difficult to implement. I quote:

Wealth taxes would:

Take a long time to introduce
Create massive problems with asset valuations
Result in very large numbers of tax disputes with wealthy taxpayers
Be very expensive to collect.

Those are big problems, and I want results now.

The changes he proposes are those which can be done through the normal legislative channels. Chancellors raise and lower tax percentages and tax allowances all the time.

Your question of whether or not Labour actually want wealth redistribution is impossible to answer, but ruling out a 'wealth tax' doesn't rule out other means of taxing wealth.

As for choosing one economic theory over another, well,I think that overtly declaring that they are going to ditch the 'theory' that has prevailed since the 1970s would lay themselves open to a barrage of right wing propaganda for the next 15 months.

Simon Wren Lewis' latest blog post is interesting on the danger of doing this:

The clearest example of this for me was the 2015 UK general election. Voters generally agreed that pretty well everything was worse in 2015 than in 2010, with one exception: “the economy”. Media pundits agreed that the economy was the Conservative party’s strong card. Yet real wages had been falling every year from 2010 until 2014, and had only begun to grow during 2015. As a result, Labour attempted to raise the ‘cost of living’ as an issue. What could explain this combination of real wage falls with the feeling a majority of voters had that the government was managing the economy well?

Part of the answer is that a crucial group of voters, pensioners, were cushioned from real wage falls. But the main answer has to be that many voters, encouraged by the media, had decided that ‘managing the economy’ was all about reducing the budget deficit. The major aim of the government was to bring down the deficit. Most media bought into the idea that the budget deficit was the major economic problem the UK faced, and as a result Labour gave up on their attempts to balance this against more conventional macroeconomic goals.

It was nonsense of course, for reasons I and others have elaborated on at length, but in political terms it worked, leading the Conservatives to win that 2015 election, leading to Brexit and further economic failure. How was it possible that faced with substantially lower real wages than five years earlier, voters and the non-partisan media nevertheless could be convinced that the budget deficit was more important than living standards?

The blog is worth reading
mainlymacro.blogspot.com/