What is left about Labour now?

Glorianny

The Labour conference this year will host events sponsored by weapons manufacturers, a spyware firm linked to the CIA, fossil fuel companies and private health care providers. How can this party deliver the change it promises? It is essentially the Tory party of the past re-imagined and named Labour.

Labour was basically "cuckooed" by an influx of new members into the "home" of its then left-of-centre voters. This group then tried to push the far-left verging on communist drugs that definitely gave a "high" to its followers.

It could have stuck to this, but the members decided to move back the more centre-left it previously stood for. This doesn't mean it is no longer left-wing. The policies are just less dictatorial than the new influx wanted.

Interestingly, we can see where the power lies in each party as the Conservatives went through the same thing, but the "cuckoos" were the 147 MPs elected for the first time in 2010. They were majority pro-Brexit and far-right. They literally pushed the one-nation Tories out of the nest. So far there is no sign of them being able to reclaim the party.

DaisyAnneReturns
👏

In both cases they can’t create unlimited money if the BoE did it would loose confidence of investors. Commercial banks are restricted by minimum letie59nding rate and reserves set by BoE.

Katie59

I posted the account of Credit Suisse's recapitalisation after the GFC to demonstrate that banks can, and do, create huge amounts of money without any problem. Credit Suisse created 7billion of their currency to lend to the Gulf investors so that the investors could but their preference shares.! Do you not understand the significance of that 'story'? In effect, it was just an accounting fiction. However, the bank was recapitalised because the investors used the money the bank 'lent' them to buy the shares, the created money returned to the bank via their purchases, to recapitalise it and the investors got a valuable asset without having to pay for it.

Werner does point out that such a transaction would be illegal in many jurisdictions, but Credit Suisse was entirely open about what they had done and it had no adverse effect. Werner suspects that Barclay's bank did a similar thing, but not so openly...

The Bank of England has no effectual control over the amount of money that the commercial banks create as loans.

From Werner's paper again:

According to analysts at Italian bank Mediobanca, such bank loans to new bank share investors were a "fairly common practice... during the crisis", whereby Credit Suisse may have been unusual in disclosing this and obtaining regulatory approval. Either way, banks in this way created their own capital out of nothing, thus making nonsense of capital adequacy regulations.

We learn from this that under the right circumstances it is possible even for an individual bank to show almost any amount of capital to regulators. It is even more easily possible for the whole banking system collectively to do likewise, without directly contravening the Companies Act. Since during boom times an increasing amount of money is created by banks (hence the boom), some of that can be siphoned off by banks to bolster their capital by issuing new equity. The regulators seem unaware of this fact,...

You really should read the paper... Werner is a professor of banking and economics, after all. I think he knows what he is talking about. He does like to base what he says on empirical research.

The banks' reserve accounts have nothing to do with limiting the amount of money the banks can create. They exist to facilitate interbank operations (such as 'clearing') and as a mechanism for paying government bills. The BoE puts created money into reserves to cover the transactions but the money itself never leaves the reserve accounts, it just gets transferred between individual banks reserves.

UK bank reserves are very high because of the guarantee the government gave after the GFC that in the case of a bank failure all customers' deposits up to the value of £85,000 would be refunded to them. The reserves have to be sufficient to cover this guarantee and it was the BoE that put the required sums into the banks' reserve accounts. It created the money to do so.

I'm not sure who you mean when you talk about 'investors' who lose confidence. If you mean purchasers of government bonds (gilts) then they have shown no desire to get rid of these assets because they are the safest investment possible because the government cannot run out of the money it creates.

If you're talking about investors in UK who invest in current businesses and startups, or foreign businesses setting up operations in the UK we have already covered them. They're for the most part not investing because our sluggish economy and poor future prospects don't offer them the returns they want from their investment.

Perhaps this is why Labour are a bit cagey about disclosing their future plans:

From the FT

Ministers have pledged to reinstate the right of women to receive equal pay with men for doing the same job — even if they work in different locations or for outsourcing companies — despite recently scrapping the EU law behind the protection .

But on Tuesday evening a government spokesperson said ministers were now determined to reinstate the law using secondary legislation later this year.

The government’s apparent U-turn came just hours after senior Labour figures told the Financial Times that the party would introduce a pledge to reinstate the previous protections if it won the general election expected next year.

www.ft.com/content/292f6094-7657-41f4-9a4a-56608928f472?emailId=5a09ff27-f41c-4245-a4fd-b7bc5db76977&segmentId=22011ee7-896a-8c4c-22a0-7603348b7f22

Assuming the GE is 2nd May 2024 we have 245 days 10 hours 17 minutes to wait.

Of course, they must hold it no later than 24 January 2025, but the clever money is apparently on May.

I don’t think that our poor country could stand much more. Look at the dreadful state we have been brought to in just 10 years.

I know Whitewave. That's what made me look it up.

Starmer is simply realistic. The voters will never elect a far Left party to government. Corbyn's leadership proves it. Labour has to position itself as Left of Centre but no further than that. If you want the Tories out vote Labour (or tactically Lib Dem in some places; don't bother voting Green, etc.).

The voters will never elect a far Left party to government.

Our parents did when the voted for Atlee after WW2. If you can describe Atlee's government as 'far left'

There was nothing in the last Labour Manifesto which was any further 'left' than Atlee's LP.

MaizieD, I agree about Attlee and the manifesto at the last election.
I supported Michael Foot, I was shocked when Labour wasn’t elected under his leadership. I’ve learned a lot since then. I voted Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper, supported Corbyn when he was elected. A year into his leadership i despaired. Canvassing in this ‘red wall’ constituency, what people said was they’d never vote Labour with yon mon in charge. He wasn’t trusted on defence or finances. Our good Labour mp lost by 400 votes, from a 5000 majority.

The destruction to our nhs/all public services over the past 13 years can’t be under estimated. We need Labour in government.

MaizieD

^The voters will never elect a far Left party to government.^

Our parents did when the voted for Atlee after WW2. If you can describe Atlee's government as 'far left'

There was nothing in the last Labour Manifesto which was any further 'left' than Atlee's LP.

I know, and I would like to think that the voter was just as altruistic now, but being entirely realistic, and certainly during the last 40 years I think that the voting population has moved further to the right - for various reasons - one of course the influence of the media. But post war Britain was in a very different place particularly the working classes.

They rejected Foot, Kinnock and Corbyn -all to the left of centre left, but Blair -a centre left politician was awarded a massive majority - far bigger than any previous government since the war -Tory or Labour, that must tell us something

DaisyAnneReturns

Glorianny

The Labour conference this year will host events sponsored by weapons manufacturers, a spyware firm linked to the CIA, fossil fuel companies and private health care providers. How can this party deliver the change it promises? It is essentially the Tory party of the past re-imagined and named Labour.

Labour was basically "cuckooed" by an influx of new members into the "home" of its then left-of-centre voters. This group then tried to push the far-left verging on communist drugs that definitely gave a "high" to its followers.

It could have stuck to this, but the members decided to move back the more centre-left it previously stood for. This doesn't mean it is no longer left-wing. The policies are just less dictatorial than the new influx wanted.

Interestingly, we can see where the power lies in each party as the Conservatives went through the same thing, but the "cuckoos" were the 147 MPs elected for the first time in 2010. They were majority pro-Brexit and far-right. They literally pushed the one-nation Tories out of the nest. So far there is no sign of them being able to reclaim the party.

So once again a whole diatribe about the "far-left" which apparently controlled the party and an assertion that the party is still left -wing but with no actual evidence. Unfortunately I can see nothing in any policy being presented which aligns with left wing beliefs.
Perhaps DAR you could explain what exactly makes the Labour party left wing now, because be damned if I can find anything.
The policies are not "less dictatorial" they are less anything which supports the poor, which protects the NHS, which supports non-profit public ownership, or which protects employees. Perhaps you can educate me.
What most people seem to be saying is that Starmer won't release policies because the Tories will enact them now. An ideal time then to produce something radical they can't copy.

Glorianny

DaisyAnneReturns

Glorianny

The Labour conference this year will host events sponsored by weapons manufacturers, a spyware firm linked to the CIA, fossil fuel companies and private health care providers. How can this party deliver the change it promises? It is essentially the Tory party of the past re-imagined and named Labour.

Labour was basically "cuckooed" by an influx of new members into the "home" of its then left-of-centre voters. This group then tried to push the far-left verging on communist drugs that definitely gave a "high" to its followers.

It could have stuck to this, but the members decided to move back the more centre-left it previously stood for. This doesn't mean it is no longer left-wing. The policies are just less dictatorial than the new influx wanted.

Interestingly, we can see where the power lies in each party as the Conservatives went through the same thing, but the "cuckoos" were the 147 MPs elected for the first time in 2010. They were majority pro-Brexit and far-right. They literally pushed the one-nation Tories out of the nest. So far there is no sign of them being able to reclaim the party.

So once again a whole diatribe about the "far-left" which apparently controlled the party and an assertion that the party is still left -wing but with no actual evidence. Unfortunately I can see nothing in any policy being presented which aligns with left wing beliefs.
Perhaps DAR you could explain what exactly makes the Labour party left wing now, because be damned if I can find anything.
The policies are not "less dictatorial" they are less anything which supports the poor, which protects the NHS, which supports non-profit public ownership, or which protects employees. Perhaps you can educate me.
What most people seem to be saying is that Starmer won't release policies because the Tories will enact them now. An ideal time then to produce something radical they can't copy.

Regarding your last paragraph, the two suppositions you make don’t equate to each other Glorianny. Not declaring what the specific policies are, yet, is ensuring that Labour are maintaining a comfortable majority in the polls. Declaring a radical policy is the diametric opposite of what will work to maintain that majority. People don’t want radical - apart that is from the further left and further right, who both want radical, just different radical. The 80% in the middle want moderate.

Whitewavemark2

MaizieD

The voters will never elect a far Left party to government.

Our parents did when the voted for Atlee after WW2. If you can describe Atlee's government as 'far left'

There was nothing in the last Labour Manifesto which was any further 'left' than Atlee's LP.

I know, and I would like to think that the voter was just as altruistic now, but being entirely realistic, and certainly during the last 40 years I think that the voting population has moved further to the right - for various reasons - one of course the influence of the media. But post war Britain was in a very different place particularly the working classes.

They rejected Foot, Kinnock and Corbyn -all to the left of centre left, but Blair -a centre left politician was awarded a massive majority - far bigger than any previous government since the war -Tory or Labour, that must tell us something

But Blair didn't push out of the LP anyone far-left. In fact some local authorities were run by people much to the left of Blair. He also gave definite promises to the country
^Over the five years of a Labour government^:

Education will be our number one priority, and we will increase the share of national income spent on education as we decrease it on the bills of economic and social failure
There will be no increase in the basic or top rates of income tax
We will provide stable economic growth with low inflation, and promote dynamic and competitive business and industry at home and abroad
We will get 250,000 young unemployed off benefit and into work
We will rebuild the NHS, reducing spending on administration and increasing spending on patient care
We will be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, and halve the time it takes persistent juvenile offenders to come to court
We will help build strong families and strong communities, and lay the foundations of a modern welfare state in pensions and community care
We will safeguard our environment, and develop an integrated transport policy to fight congestion and pollution
We will clean up politics, decentralise political power throughout the United Kingdom and put the funding of political parties on a proper and accountable basis
We will give Britain the leadership in Europe which Britain and Europe need

If only Starmer could produce something so definite (and not change his mind before the ink is dry)

glorianny as far as the voting public is concerned and the polls at the same time in the run up to the election, there is no difference in numbers. Starmer is doing as well as Blair, and that from a far worse base than Blair.

We are also in a different period, Blair had courted and won the approval of Murdoch, Starmer has eschewed to do so, so has to be much more careful at keeping his powder dry, for the obvious reasons.

Iam64

MaizieD, I agree about Attlee and the manifesto at the last election.
I supported Michael Foot, I was shocked when Labour wasn’t elected under his leadership. I’ve learned a lot since then. I voted Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper, supported Corbyn when he was elected. A year into his leadership i despaired. Canvassing in this ‘red wall’ constituency, what people said was they’d never vote Labour with yon mon in charge. He wasn’t trusted on defence or finances. Our good Labour mp lost by 400 votes, from a 5000 majority.

The destruction to our nhs/all public services over the past 13 years can’t be under estimated. We need Labour in government.

Same here. I adored Michael Foot. In retrospect I realised that the trouble with thoroughly decent people like him is they assume that other people are the same, but they aren’t. And times have changed: the world has changed, people have changed. Back in the day I was against the mines closing but who now would want their husband or son working down a mine. What I should have been campaigning for was employment to replace those mining jobs because those areas still have terrible unemployment and drug related problems. Which the Conservatives have done nothing to relieve even though people in some of those very areas now vote for them!

Didn't Starmer go to Rupert Murdoch's summer party?

Whitewavemark2

glorianny as far as the voting public is concerned and the polls at the same time in the run up to the election, there is no difference in numbers. Starmer is doing as well as Blair, and that from a far worse base than Blair.

We are also in a different period, Blair had courted and won the approval of Murdoch, Starmer has eschewed to do so, so has to be much more careful at keeping his powder dry, for the obvious reasons.

The last time a PM was elected in a general election without the support of Rupert Murdoch was when Harold Wilson was elected in 1974.

So for almost fifty years the UK could just as well not have allowed any voting in general elections, but saved the cost and expenses of elections and just asked Rupert Murdoch (not even a UK citizen, as far as I know) to chose a PM. The result would have been the same.

Every time I hear another right wing policy statement, or a U-turn on a previous LP position, in an interview with Keir Starmer or any of his front bench, I become more and more convinced that Rupert Murdoch will endorse the Labour Party in the next GE, so we will have an unbroken record of fifty years of Rupert Murdoch deciding who should be in charge of the UK government,.

Casdon

Glorianny

DaisyAnneReturns

Glorianny

The Labour conference this year will host events sponsored by weapons manufacturers, a spyware firm linked to the CIA, fossil fuel companies and private health care providers. How can this party deliver the change it promises? It is essentially the Tory party of the past re-imagined and named Labour.

Labour was basically "cuckooed" by an influx of new members into the "home" of its then left-of-centre voters. This group then tried to push the far-left verging on communist drugs that definitely gave a "high" to its followers.

It could have stuck to this, but the members decided to move back the more centre-left it previously stood for. This doesn't mean it is no longer left-wing. The policies are just less dictatorial than the new influx wanted.

Interestingly, we can see where the power lies in each party as the Conservatives went through the same thing, but the "cuckoos" were the 147 MPs elected for the first time in 2010. They were majority pro-Brexit and far-right. They literally pushed the one-nation Tories out of the nest. So far there is no sign of them being able to reclaim the party.

So once again a whole diatribe about the "far-left" which apparently controlled the party and an assertion that the party is still left -wing but with no actual evidence. Unfortunately I can see nothing in any policy being presented which aligns with left wing beliefs.
Perhaps DAR you could explain what exactly makes the Labour party left wing now, because be damned if I can find anything.
The policies are not "less dictatorial" they are less anything which supports the poor, which protects the NHS, which supports non-profit public ownership, or which protects employees. Perhaps you can educate me.
What most people seem to be saying is that Starmer won't release policies because the Tories will enact them now. An ideal time then to produce something radical they can't copy.

Regarding your last paragraph, the two suppositions you make don’t equate to each other Glorianny. Not declaring what the specific policies are, yet, is ensuring that Labour are maintaining a comfortable majority in the polls. Declaring a radical policy is the diametric opposite of what will work to maintain that majority. People don’t want radical - apart that is from the further left and further right, who both want radical, just different radical. The 80% in the middle want moderate.

Once again statements with no evidence. The majority of the UK public including Conservative voters want public ownership of trains, water and energy. I assume you would consider this a far left policy.
yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/10/19/most-britons-believe-trains-water-and-energy-shoul
The question you should be asking is why doesn't Starmer? (Perhaps because of the connections with companies he is building)

Glorianny

Casdon

Glorianny

DaisyAnneReturns

Glorianny

The Labour conference this year will host events sponsored by weapons manufacturers, a spyware firm linked to the CIA, fossil fuel companies and private health care providers. How can this party deliver the change it promises? It is essentially the Tory party of the past re-imagined and named Labour.

Labour was basically "cuckooed" by an influx of new members into the "home" of its then left-of-centre voters. This group then tried to push the far-left verging on communist drugs that definitely gave a "high" to its followers.

It could have stuck to this, but the members decided to move back the more centre-left it previously stood for. This doesn't mean it is no longer left-wing. The policies are just less dictatorial than the new influx wanted.

Interestingly, we can see where the power lies in each party as the Conservatives went through the same thing, but the "cuckoos" were the 147 MPs elected for the first time in 2010. They were majority pro-Brexit and far-right. They literally pushed the one-nation Tories out of the nest. So far there is no sign of them being able to reclaim the party.

So once again a whole diatribe about the "far-left" which apparently controlled the party and an assertion that the party is still left -wing but with no actual evidence. Unfortunately I can see nothing in any policy being presented which aligns with left wing beliefs.
Perhaps DAR you could explain what exactly makes the Labour party left wing now, because be damned if I can find anything.
The policies are not "less dictatorial" they are less anything which supports the poor, which protects the NHS, which supports non-profit public ownership, or which protects employees. Perhaps you can educate me.
What most people seem to be saying is that Starmer won't release policies because the Tories will enact them now. An ideal time then to produce something radical they can't copy.

Regarding your last paragraph, the two suppositions you make don’t equate to each other Glorianny. Not declaring what the specific policies are, yet, is ensuring that Labour are maintaining a comfortable majority in the polls. Declaring a radical policy is the diametric opposite of what will work to maintain that majority. People don’t want radical - apart that is from the further left and further right, who both want radical, just different radical. The 80% in the middle want moderate.

Once again statements with no evidence. The majority of the UK public including Conservative voters want public ownership of trains, water and energy. I assume you would consider this a far left policy.
yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/10/19/most-britons-believe-trains-water-and-energy-shoul
The question you should be asking is why doesn't Starmer? (Perhaps because of the connections with companies he is building)

Why do you think public ownership of utilities is specifically a far left policy Glorianny? Why do you think that in the future it won’t be considered? Why haven’t you read and understood what Starmer has actually said about this rather than putting your interpretation on his words? Why haven’t you considered the Welsh models where we already have a Labour Government? Your determination to try to rubbish the Labour Party because it isn’t doing what you prefer does you no credit.

Perhaps DAR you could explain what exactly makes the Labour party left wing now, because be damned if I can find anything.

I'm afraid I didn't make it clear Glorianny. I said:

It could have stuck to this, but the members decided to move back the more centre-left it previously stood for. This doesn't mean it is no longer left-wing.

I meant the same by centre-left as by left-wing. I was saying they have not moved to the centre or, even further, to the right. I'm sorry that it seems to upset you. It will be important, to me and others, when it comes to a vote that may aid Labour into power.

It's certainly not my job to split hairs with you over the "leftness" of your party. I write from my perspective as a centrist; it would be difficult to do anything else.

MaizieD

^The voters will never elect a far Left party to government.^

Our parents did when the voted for Atlee after WW2. If you can describe Atlee's government as 'far left'

There was nothing in the last Labour Manifesto which was any further 'left' than Atlee's LP.

Not my parents. I used to say my family weren’t working class but unemployable class. We were the lowest of the low: lived in slum housing. Mum and dad were lifelong Conservative voters. Make of that what you will. It’s a bit like the Red Wall voters voting Conservative last time. Who would have thought Dennis Skinners constituency would vote Conservative? Very little about the current political climate in this country ( and probably the rest of the world, too) makes much sense these days. The only given seems to be that no party wins an election in this country if Rupert Murdoch doesn’t want them too.

The Labour Party constituency members.and the Trade Unions, decided, by an overwhelming vote, at the last Labour Party Conference to vote for electoral reform, to change our voting system from First Past The Post to Proportional Representation and make the UK a democracy

Currently there are only two undemocratic countries in Europe - the UK and Belarus, who both elect their governments by FPTP.

All other countries in Europe are democracies where governments are elected by PR.

So what did Kier Starmer say when asked if this policy would be in the Labour Party manifesto?

"It's not a priority"!!!!!

Ilovecheese

Didn't Starmer go to Rupert Murdoch's summer party?

Are you suggesting Starmer should refuse an invitation from a businessman? I’m no friend of Murdoch but so far as I’m aware, he isn’t a Jeffrey Epstein, though no doubt he’s fraternised with him. Dirty world, business but I can’t see the benefit in Starmer sulking and refusing to talk with Murdoch

Casdon

Glorianny

Casdon

Glorianny

DaisyAnneReturns

Glorianny

The Labour conference this year will host events sponsored by weapons manufacturers, a spyware firm linked to the CIA, fossil fuel companies and private health care providers. How can this party deliver the change it promises? It is essentially the Tory party of the past re-imagined and named Labour.

Labour was basically "cuckooed" by an influx of new members into the "home" of its then left-of-centre voters. This group then tried to push the far-left verging on communist drugs that definitely gave a "high" to its followers.

It could have stuck to this, but the members decided to move back the more centre-left it previously stood for. This doesn't mean it is no longer left-wing. The policies are just less dictatorial than the new influx wanted.

Interestingly, we can see where the power lies in each party as the Conservatives went through the same thing, but the "cuckoos" were the 147 MPs elected for the first time in 2010. They were majority pro-Brexit and far-right. They literally pushed the one-nation Tories out of the nest. So far there is no sign of them being able to reclaim the party.

So once again a whole diatribe about the "far-left" which apparently controlled the party and an assertion that the party is still left -wing but with no actual evidence. Unfortunately I can see nothing in any policy being presented which aligns with left wing beliefs.
Perhaps DAR you could explain what exactly makes the Labour party left wing now, because be damned if I can find anything.
The policies are not "less dictatorial" they are less anything which supports the poor, which protects the NHS, which supports non-profit public ownership, or which protects employees. Perhaps you can educate me.
What most people seem to be saying is that Starmer won't release policies because the Tories will enact them now. An ideal time then to produce something radical they can't copy.

Regarding your last paragraph, the two suppositions you make don’t equate to each other Glorianny. Not declaring what the specific policies are, yet, is ensuring that Labour are maintaining a comfortable majority in the polls. Declaring a radical policy is the diametric opposite of what will work to maintain that majority. People don’t want radical - apart that is from the further left and further right, who both want radical, just different radical. The 80% in the middle want moderate.

Once again statements with no evidence. The majority of the UK public including Conservative voters want public ownership of trains, water and energy. I assume you would consider this a far left policy.
yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/10/19/most-britons-believe-trains-water-and-energy-shoul
The question you should be asking is why doesn't Starmer? (Perhaps because of the connections with companies he is building)

Why do you think public ownership of utilities is specifically a far left policy Glorianny? Why do you think that in the future it won’t be considered? Why haven’t you read and understood what Starmer has actually said about this rather than putting your interpretation on his words? Why haven’t you considered the Welsh models where we already have a Labour Government? Your determination to try to rubbish the Labour Party because it isn’t doing what you prefer does you no credit.

Why can't you answer a question Casdon
But here goes on yours.
Rachel Reeves has said they won't and is more concerned with "balancing the books"
Starmer (surprise surprise ) is sitting firmly on the fence and apparently "being pragmatic"
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/louise-haigh-rachel-reeves-aslef-andy-mcdonald-angela-rayner-b2130543.html

MPs want to nationalise water, but the Utility ompanies are uniting to lobby Labour www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/30/labour-mps-urge-keir-starmer-to-commit-to-nationalising-thames-water

I am not "rubbishing" the LP I am trying to discover exactly what policies are being kept that might be reasonably considered as helping the people Labour is supposed to support. And all people on this thread do is tell me how wrong I am without producing any evidence to back up their assertions.