These lengthy prison sentences for rioters

But she can't fix years of austerity with more austerity. I actually think she rather enjoys seeing herself as tough.

I agree MissAdventure, and it does make sense. As long as people are denied the basics there will be disaffected people who are easily persuaded that they have no stake in society. People need hope, and a sense that what they hope for is possible.

Molly it would be a good idea to raise the personal tax allowance so that the low paid don't pay as much, and increase the rate at the top end.

Let’s give Rachel Reeves chance to draw breath. I’m writing to my newly elected Labour MP about hmp/norway issues.
We were having the same debates about restorative justice and the kind of prisoners madmumofboys mentioned in 1977 when I was working with offenders. It’s depressing that this country seems unable to be guided by research and what works in Scandi countries.
Austerity was totally unnecessary. It was a political policy to destroy our public services.
It succeeded - what a mess we are in

The nub of the problem, as far as I can see, is that initiatives to provide rehabilitation, education etc. for prisoners is

a) That it isn't a vote catcher

b) that initiatives have to come from government by way of government ministers and ministerial projects tend to be short term, rather than long term strategy, they can be abandoned with a change of minister, and there is no guarantee that a long term strategy would be honoured by subsequent governments. They also depend on whether or not the minister can persuade the Treasury to allow for them in the departmental budgets.

And, of course, if the minister has sufficient ability to drive the project in the face of inevitable scepticism about its usefulness from those who have worked in the field for many years.

The more I read about how government 'works' the more I fear that it doesn't really work very well at all. 🙁

Iam64

Let’s give Rachel Reeves chance to draw breath. I’m writing to my newly elected Labour MP about hmp/norway issues.
We were having the same debates about restorative justice and the kind of prisoners madmumofboys mentioned in 1977 when I was working with offenders. It’s depressing that this country seems unable to be guided by research and what works in Scandi countries.
Austerity was totally unnecessary. It was a political policy to destroy our public services.
It succeeded - what a mess we are in

I don't feel inclined to give her time to draw breath, Her first , frankly politically damaging, action in withdrawing the WFA, her insistence on sticking to those dreadful fiscal rules, and her enthusiasm for involving 'business' to provide funding, at a cost to the government and to enrich the private sector, seem to me to be economically insane and not likely to have the desired result at all.

I had hoped she'd loosen up once in office, but she seems to get worse, rather than better.

Mailed, your knowledge of economics is streets ahead of mine. I fear your analysis may be right

My plan would be to increase the state pension. It’s shamefully low, increase it so the winter fuel allowance is not needed. People in the fortunate position I am, having a work pension as well as my state pension, would pay more tax.

Is this something that could improve our current situation. Nobody can manage on a basic state pension unless they qualify for pension credits. It shouldn’t be necessary

Sorry - blinking predictive text, it said MazieD before posting

Iam64

Sorry - blinking predictive text, it said MazieD before posting

😂😂😂

I don't think Rachel Reeves has ever hidden the sort of person she is. She has wanted for a long time to be "tougher than the Tories ".
She doesn't seem to be a very imaginative economist.

Ilovecheese

I don't think Rachel Reeves has ever hidden the sort of person she is. She has wanted for a long time to be "tougher than the Tories ".
She doesn't seem to be a very imaginative economist.

The tougher than the Tories trope wins Labour some Brownie points pre-election.

They, Labour, are in a no-win situation. If they continue with this model of economics, they will lose both traditional Labour voters as well as those who couldn't make up their minds but hoped for better things from the party.

If they go down the more left-wing path towards economics that look anything like socialism - Starmer will be accused of Corbynomics.

Let's face it, what we have is a Labour party in government following the same free-market economic policy bolstered by the 'small state' - in spite of the recent pay awards.

How many times does one have to patch and repair the same pair of trousers falling apart at the seams before it becomes obvious that they need chucking out and replaced by a new pair?

By how much will the wealth-gap narrow; just what are the 'life-chances' for those in the de-industrialised areas of the north east, midlands - the north; when are rental prices going to become affordable for the average worker; when will we reach that capstone where employees are actually paid a wage that doesn't require a top-up from the state?

I know Rome was not built in a day, but the signs aren't good so far.

But then, British voters have already swallowed the Tory creed that they are the natural party of government and the only one that can be trusted with the economy. Even when self-indulgent, lying and/or incompetent politicians espouse the mantra.

We prefer what we call the middle-ground but that has been shifting to the right for years now.

What always puzzles me is that quite often, those with the least in economic terms - those with the most to lose in terms of welfare, healthcare, housing, etc, are the ones who vote for the very party that will ensure they remain impoverished in all of those areas. Just dangle a carrot or a scapegoat - get-Brexit-done and build-back-better... and the losers - and I use the word in the its true sense, not as a derogatory slur - are hooked.

The problem is that Labour is Tweedledee and the Tories are Tweedledum (or the other way round) - but both are operating the same clapped-out machinery.

I agree with all you say Dickens and I admit that it is making me really disheartened.
Lack of vision and lack of imagination and lack of investment in our country.

If they go down the more left-wing path towards economics that look anything like socialism - Starmer will be accused of Corbynomics.

Being accused of 'Corbynomics' should be a matter of indifference to a party with a majority as large as Labour's. No -one can stop them directing the economy in any way they choose. If their 'Corbynomics' improves the lives of a significant proportion of the electorate and promotes growth over the course of their term of office I can't see them being 'punished' for it at the ballot box.

After all, people voted for them not to perpetuate tory economic policy. Or am I mistaken?

There are economists and commentators crying out for them to seize the great opportunity they have now to go ahead with the serious spending needed to restore the state sector, schools, justice, the NHS, housing etc. To bring water back under state control , which it should never have left and to develop renewable energy. Spending that will benefit the UK. Spending that will benefit the private sector as more money circulates in the economy, and which will encourage private investment when they can see profit to be made.

Labour's continuing defensive stance over the economy as though they are still trying to win an election, smacks of cowardice to me. Or lack of vision.

P.S I defended 'corbynomics' at the time. There was nothing much wrong with it. You cannot effect change while clinging to Thatcher's and her successor's, uninformed, incorrect and damaging 'household' theory of economics ...

I honestly think it's too early days: wait to see what the autumn brings. No, I didn't vote for them to continue the same economic policy.

There are economists and commentators crying out for them to seize the great opportunity they have now to go ahead with the serious spending needed to restore the state sector, schools, justice, the NHS, housing etc. To bring water back under state control , which it should never have left and to develop renewable energy. Spending that will benefit the UK. Spending that will benefit the private sector as more money circulates in the economy, and which will encourage private investment when they can see profit to be made.

This is all true MaizieD, I know that.

But I also believe that large parts of the electorate are fickle, and that the right-wing media are going to continue to nag at Starmer and the Labour party like a dog with a bone, analysing and twisting every word and policy decision.

I know the Tories are licking their wounds and the party is in disarray, but they are only the interface between the public and the wealth and power in control.

What you are proposing is going to take time not only for the average person to begin to see some real change in their lives, but also for the private sector to realise its profit.

P.S I defended 'corbynomics' at the time. There was nothing much wrong with it.

... yes, and so did I! What is actually wrong with "for the many not the few"?

But why didn't those who often stood to benefit most, reject it? Why did the 'red-wall' cave in and vote for good ole Boris and Brexit? Why did Boris Johnson who has about as much in common with the red-wall as I have with learning to fly a trapeze, see him as their saviour?

Maybe I'm just having a bad moment - I'm certainly 'politically' depressed. But when Starmer hints that there will be no 'spending' spree and Reeves appears to be posturing as a 'tough Tory' murmuring about economic black-holes, it really does make me despair.

It's probably just me, cynicism has taken over.

Ilovecheese

I agree with all you say Dickens and I admit that it is making me really disheartened.
Lack of vision and lack of imagination and lack of investment in our country.

So it's not just me then Ilovecheese!

You know, I'm not actually anti-Capitalism - I really do believe it's possible to have a robust Capitalist economy and a welfare state - welfare as in the well-fare of a country's citizens.

I hark on about Norway, but having lived and worked there for over a decade, I have seen it in action. Far from perfect, but Norway does invest in its people. It's in the country's psyche.

I'm just not sure we have the same mindset or spirit in this country.

Have you ever read The Ragged-Trouserd Philanthropists? It kind of explains it all. How people acquiesce in their own exploitation. That's more or less how I see us, here in the UK - or maybe just England.

Did people vote for Starmer's Labour party because they'd simply had enough of the Tories, or do they believe in a better world? What do you think?

But I also believe that large parts of the electorate are fickle, and that the right-wing media are going to continue to nag at Starmer and the Labour party like a dog with a bone, analysing and twisting every word and policy decision.

I think Labour just has to ignore the RW media and get on with the job. They've made a good start with public sector worker's pay settlements and the rail workers. There's a sizeable chunk of voters who aren't going to complain. They should have the ability to make a tangible difference in 5 years and keep improvement in the public eye. They would then have a record to fight the next election on. Unlike the tories who had nothing at all to show for their 14 years in government and who still won't have anything to show in 5 year's time.

I have owned The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists for many years. I found it utterly depressing to read because nothing seemed to have changed in the then 80 odd years since it was written. I have thought of rereading it a few times in the past few years but I couldn't face it! Take away the century old setting and the dialogue could be that of today...

So now I'm rereading E P Thompson's The Making of the English Working Class. He's been looking at the myth of a wonderful past which the poorer classes enjoyed before Inclosures and Industrialisation took away their 'freedoms' and independence, depriving them of access to land for sustenance and to controlling their own rates of work. While this particular myth isn't operative today, I think a general one of a more rosy past is very prevalent and that it is the 'perfection' of the past that people are hoping for rather than adapting to the modern world. They want change, but retrograde change, not progressive.

MaizieD

^But I also believe that large parts of the electorate are fickle, and that the right-wing media are going to continue to nag at Starmer and the Labour party like a dog with a bone, analysing and twisting every word and policy decision.^

I think Labour just has to ignore the RW media and get on with the job. They've made a good start with public sector worker's pay settlements and the rail workers. There's a sizeable chunk of voters who aren't going to complain. They should have the ability to make a tangible difference in 5 years and keep improvement in the public eye. They would then have a record to fight the next election on. Unlike the tories who had nothing at all to show for their 14 years in government and who still won't have anything to show in 5 year's time.

I have owned The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists for many years. I found it utterly depressing to read because nothing seemed to have changed in the then 80 odd years since it was written. I have thought of rereading it a few times in the past few years but I couldn't face it! Take away the century old setting and the dialogue could be that of today...

So now I'm rereading E P Thompson's The Making of the English Working Class. He's been looking at the myth of a wonderful past which the poorer classes enjoyed before Inclosures and Industrialisation took away their 'freedoms' and independence, depriving them of access to land for sustenance and to controlling their own rates of work. While this particular myth isn't operative today, I think a general one of a more rosy past is very prevalent and that it is the 'perfection' of the past that people are hoping for rather than adapting to the modern world. They want change, but retrograde change, not progressive.

Not sure what's progressive about a Labour gov. They seem to be taking us back to 1984.
Freezing pensioners whilst giving millions to Malaysia to improve their roads.
This Gov will be a disaster for free speech, not hate speech that is a no no, cost of living, anti home ownership, squeezing more out of pensioners and the private sector to keep the bloated public sector going. Locking up someone shouting at a police dog, arresting someone for privately praying,ha she won her appeal, so pleased,yet leaving shouters of racist songs and terrorist flag flyers alone. Telling the people who disagree with mass immigration they are far right, think of his disastrous speech in NI also.
1984 well on its way.
Carry on like this, and doing nothing for our British economy, and they'll be lucky to see out their five years of Orwellianism.

MaizieD

I think Labour just has to ignore the RW media and get on with the job. They've made a good start with public sector worker's pay settlements and the rail workers.

Yup. The pay settlements were not only a good start, I think they were essential.

The LP can ignore the RW media. But the electorate won't.

You have read it yourself - Tressell's novel, and yes, it was an utterly depressing read because as you say, nothing's really changed.

That's what worries me.

Anyway... I'm going to read E P Thompson's The Making of the English Working Class. I've just ordered it from eBay!

Do you remember what Henry Ford said?

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

But "the people" don't, do they? They still believe in 'handbag economics'. And Reeves has just looked in the handbag and declared now that "tough decisions" will have to be made. Where have we heard that before!

replying to posts by Dickens and MaizieD
I havn't read The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist although perhaps I should as I have often seen it mentioned. It might make me even more depressed about things than I do now though.
I supported Corbyn and McDonnell in their ideas about a country being run "for the many" and I still don't see anything wrong with that as an idea.

Starmer has now been quoted as saying that things are going to be worse for ordinary people, but seems to me that is a choice he is making by protecting the profits of the energy companies, which are huge.

He seems to be trying to fix the conditions left by the Conservatives by continuing with conservative policies and I don't see how that can work.

He has gone to a great deal of trouble to court Conservative voters before the election, and managed to scrape together enough of them to win a majority on a small vote share. Whatever the rights and wrongs of removing the winter fuel payments for pensioners, surely that will alienate those Conservatives that he managed to get to vote for him.

If he carries on like this he is setting himself to lose the next election as people might prefer the real Tory party to his copycat version. he can't really rely on the Tories continuing to be shambolic for the next five years.

I have seen "handbag economics" also referred to as "The Thatcherite Fallacy"

Rachel Reeves might sound more truthful when talking about "tough decisions" if she actually made a decision that would affect MPs, maybe remove their own energy subsidies, or subsidised alcohol and food.

Ilovecheese

^ Rachel Reeves might sound more truthful when talking about "tough decisions" if she actually made a decision that would affect MPs, maybe remove their own energy subsidies, or subsidised alcohol and food.^

That’s sooo not going to happen!

Ilovecheese

I have seen "handbag economics" also referred to as "The Thatcherite Fallacy"

Rachel Reeves might sound more truthful when talking about "tough decisions" if she actually made a decision that would affect MPs, maybe remove their own energy subsidies, or subsidised alcohol and food.

I have seen "handbag economics" also referred to as "The Thatcherite Fallacy"

Not to mention the "maxed-out credit card"!

Economic mythology...

We have been living on economic mythology for at least the last 20 yrs, where no polititians had the first idea about balancing the books, where the only imperative was giveaways to please voters.

The result was increased borrowing every year, it’s fine to borrow to expand the economy or improve infrastructure but it wasn’t. The result is now many are demanding renationalization of failed utilities and transport, but expect someone else to pay for it - well sorry that’s not going to happen, short term or long we are going to pay.

Now Starmer is said to be going to make a speech telling us that things are going to be worse. Why would anyone do that? Convince people to vote for them because they were going to make things better then immediately admit that you are incapable of doing what you promised. Why advertise the fact that you are either unwilling or unable to improve people's lives.