What is left about Labour now?

My most pressing concerns, which are entirely personal are:

Removing the 2 child benefit cap, and returning to a needs based system so that the current iniquitous level of child poverty can be reduced.

Cleaning up the waterways preferable taking water back into public ownership.

Getting rid of the bedroom tax, which just wastes money on private rentals and causes a lot of unnecessary worry and stress.

and now, of course making sure that all our schools and public building are actually safe to enter,

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.

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.

You are very evasive though Glorianny, I’d love you to articulate what exactly it is that you do want, which will be achievable and acceptable to the electorate.

Some say once KS gets into government he will change but if it’s not in the manifesto you then don’t have a mandate to do it.
No taxing the very rich, fiscal rules.
No nationalisation
We are the only country in the world with privatised water.

Who destroyed democracy twenty years ago, genuine question it’s the heay

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.

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?

DaisyAnneReturns

I get that you think it's of interest Gloriany - to you. But I'll ask both you and Grany again, what outcome do you want. Are you suggesting that the Conservatives back in power will give you something closer to what you want? Are you suggesting Conservatuves back in power will behave better than you are suggesting Starmer behaves?

No party will give you exactly what you want. If that happened we would have 32 million parties because there are 32 million voters. No party will even offer to fulfil all your dreams. But you can vote for an existing party that brings you closer to what you want. As it is you and Grany just seem out to destroy, although I'm not exactly sure of your motivation for wanting such destruction.

I would have thought it was quite obvious what I was suggesting. That Starmer leads the LP for very doubtful and questionable reasons. That if he remains in post and takes us into two elections than democracy will be challenged. How long recovery from that challenge will take is uncertain. Last time it took over 20years.

As for what I want it's very much what most people want. There are numerous links to the figures on this thread. And I've already posted my views. Why on earth people on GN don't believe the polls or insist on castigating Grany and me I don't know.

By the way Gloriany, I think you may misunderstand the meaning of "research". What you think of as "research" seems very untested - often just someone else's equally untested opinion.

I get that you think it's of interest Gloriany - to you. But I'll ask both you and Grany again, what outcome do you want. Are you suggesting that the Conservatives back in power will give you something closer to what you want? Are you suggesting Conservatuves back in power will behave better than you are suggesting Starmer behaves?

No party will give you exactly what you want. If that happened we would have 32 million parties because there are 32 million voters. No party will even offer to fulfil all your dreams. But you can vote for an existing party that brings you closer to what you want. As it is you and Grany just seem out to destroy, although I'm not exactly sure of your motivation for wanting such destruction.

DaisyAnneReturns

What outcome do you expect to get by talking on Gransnet about the Trilateral Commission Glorianny?

It's a hobbyist's topic. I would guess very few GN members are interested in the conspiracy theories of the far (and slightly strange) left. It's rather like the weird things Trump supporters say. There is only ever going to be interest from an infinitesimal minority. It has to be said though, that, on the Trunp right it did encourage a slightly larger minority to think they could take over their government by force. Is this the outcome you hope for? Because no extreme minority can gain power democratically.

Well I happen to think it is of interest DAR. I realise many think it is something of a left conspiracy theory, but even a little research reveals interesting stuff.
Like the involvement in democracy.Possibly the best way of judging is to look at voting figures.The TC wants to see less involvement and said there was too much in the 1970s. The 70s general elections brought out over 70% of the public. The figures fell dramatically to the end of Blair's government to just over 50% possibly because there was little difference between the parties. They rose to over 70% again in 2017. There may be a large turn out for the next election because of the government incompetence, but as the parties grow closer to each other it is increasingly likely that participation will fall. www.statista.com/statistics/1050929/voter-turnout-in-the-uk/

I remember reading it somewhere, people think Conservative and Labour have same policies, they do actually. So 60% think so. Or maybe I imagined it. Its not extreme bias just concern. Starmer, Five Stories by a writer Matt Kenard investigative journalist who writes for Declassified. A book written. The Starmer Project. By another author, writing Starmer is very establishment friendly. So all reserched facts, not conspiracy theories.
Mandalson was a good friend of Epstein who called him Petey, advisor to KS.

What outcome do you expect to get by talking on Gransnet about the Trilateral Commission Glorianny?

It's a hobbyist's topic. I would guess very few GN members are interested in the conspiracy theories of the far (and slightly strange) left. It's rather like the weird things Trump supporters say. There is only ever going to be interest from an infinitesimal minority. It has to be said though, that, on the Trunp right it did encourage a slightly larger minority to think they could take over their government by force. Is this the outcome you hope for? Because no extreme minority can gain power democratically.

Glorianny

Just to add one well known member of the Trilateral Commission was Jeffrey Epstein, and if that doesn't worry you perhaps it should.

One black sheep doesn't turn the rest of the flock black.

Just to add one well known member of the Trilateral Commission was Jeffrey Epstein, and if that doesn't worry you perhaps it should.

Which poll was that Grany.

I haven't come across any such figures, or even such a biased survey question. Any polling company using questions like that would be very suspect indeed. Just as your own extreme bias makes the evidence you offer very suspect to most people reading it.

No faith in any of the political parties especially Starmer. Also wealth taxes don't work as most wealth isn't liquid (e.g. hard to sell a mansion).

Glorianny

But Starmer is inexplicably linked with Israel. He has refused to declare Israel an apartheid state in spite of evidence and the views of many reputable human rights organisations like Amnesty.
He has thrown left wing Jews out of the Labour party with very little reason. Apparently when he does this it isn't anti-semitism they are simply "the wrong sort of Jew"
He had a very strange and still unexplained relationship with the CIA whilst head of the CPS
And he was until very recently a member of a secretive organisation, something he withheld from the LP and parliament. Starmer's membership of the Trilateral Commission remains a complete mystery. He has now left of course. But one LP bigwig who remains a member is Peter Mandelson. labourheartlands.com/sir-keir-starmer-the-establishment-candidate-the-labour-leadership-race-and-the-trilateral-commission/

By all means let's hear about Starmer's achievements but let's also be aware that this man has very strange connections and ideas that do not align with Labour beliefs in democracy, equality, or human rights.

Agree

And those polled 60% think Tory party and 'Labour' Party are no different.

Whitewavemark2

I believe that Obama was also a member of the TC?

Honestly glorianny left wing conspiracies are never very convincing at the best of times, and reiterating the nonsense in left wing publications never helps the left wing rump in their arguments.

What would be more convincing would be a detailed critique of Labour Party policy from the left wing point of view, - government policy will make or break any government, not some silly conspiracy theory about “dark power” - to do so begins to sound like Nadine Dorries or Donald Trump and we all know how sound of mind they are!

And with regard to Tony Benn, all questions easily answered by any labour leader.

Obama was. So were Jimmy Carter and George Bush
It isn't a left wing conspiracy theory. The only book the TC has published seems to advocate restricting democracy.

Social critic and academic Noam Chomsky has criticized the commission as undemocratic, pointing to its publication The Crisis of Democracy, which describes the strong popular interest in politics during the 1970s as an "excess of democracy

Nobody has, DaisyAnneReturns, you’ve misunderstood my post. I cited potential reasons why the post may have been taken down, and that was one of the examples I gave?
I didn’t see either Grany’s post or yours that were taken down, and I’m not involved, nor do I want to be, in whatever you and MaisieD are in disagreement about. What I am interested in though, as I said is the reason for the post grany made being deleted if it didn’t break any rules of the forum - on that I agree with MaisieD, and you, as you say you don’t know why it was removed either.

Who said it was libellous, Casdon? I haven't mentioned the word regarding Grany's post. Maisie brought it up, in the first instance, by referring back to a previous thread by saying:

"I am feeling that a poster is trying to control what is being said on this forum and is using suggestions of possible defamation litigation to the moderators to scare them into removing posts."

If Maisie had read my posts on the other thread or you had read those or my explanation on here, you would have realised that, right or wrong, that is exactly the opposite of what I would expect the moderators to do.

I have no idea why the post was removed. My post was deleted because it quoted the original. I had been given permission to repost it but felt we had moved on until Maisie brought the other thread in.

Anti semitism

MaizieD is right regarding the censorship, whatever the issue between you. If what granysaid wasn’t libellous, or personally insulting to another poster, or referring back to a previous thread, what other reason would there be for it being removed?

I got the impression on the thread you allude to that people were far more upset that I wouldn't agree with them than by my quest for the truth about the perversity of the law. It often happens when people express outrage, that none may disagree. Disagreement is felt to devalue their belief in the righteousness of their attack.

Why jump to the conclusion that someone who replied, carefully and diligently, would then report a post. You have been both rude and insulting recently. In the same way as the alluded to thread, it appears to be because I have disagreed with you. I have commended your research, and said I hope economics in general can gain from the theory, but that is not enough. We must all agree and keep the faith. Except it isn't my faith, is it?

Perhaps, after leaping to such an unreasonable conclusion the digs and insults could stop now?

If it wasn't you who had Grany's post deleted, the who was it, and why?

I apologise if I came to a mistaken conclusion, but after the fuss you made on another thread about what you, but no-one else, even GSM, seemed to consider to be defamation, you seemed to be a likely person to have reported the post.

But my main concern is why is someone attempting to censor Grany?