Labour Watch

[Max Fowler]

No, we should definitely keep on with a strategy that keeps power in the hands of the rich.

And Starmers Labour will do exactly that. Because we have to be grown-ups and not spook anyone with radical, fanciful nonsense like free Wi-fi for all or other such lefty utopian dreams.

[Max B Gold]

Seeing a lot of snark and not a lot of ideas

Enjoy.

[Max Fowler]

Seeing a lot of snark and not a lot of ideas

You've been the snarkiest f*cker on this thread over the past couple of pages. (Although I get that's pretty standard).

As for ideas, don't be daft, I'm not going to give out any ideas now, I'll wait until the next election.

[Mistadobalina]

Not enamoured with Starmer at all but some of the low key policy wonk stuff they are talking about - devolution, having a proper industrial strategy, actual plans for transitioning to net zero instead of just rhetoric - will make a significant number of lives better. Nowhere near as much as is needed, but miles ahead of the endless rolling shambles of Tory government that has f*cked the country for the last 13 years. They won't do mental stuff that immediately costs people thousands of pounds, and they'll do less of the vindictive stuff that ruins lives in a real way.

And if rejoining the EU is your thing, Labour will almost definitely bring us much closer to Europe, with a view to being in the EEA or something similar. That'd give us an immediate improvement in the amount of money the average person will have.

Getting rid of Corbyn doesn't sit right with me but it makes tactical sense and I can't see why it'd be a deal breaker when the alternative is Sunak or even possibly Johnson again.

Cracking policy here, probably stolen from a Tory policy wonks briefcase

Is that a labour policy? I just tried searching for it online and only references I can see are headlines from a decade ago that seemed to have been misreported anyway.

[Max B Gold]

No, we should definitely keep on with a strategy that keeps power in the hands of the rich.

And Starmers Labour will do exactly that. Because we have to be grown-ups and not spook anyone with radical, fanciful nonsense like free Wi-fi for all or other such lefty utopian dreams.

Snark Alert

Since when did we water down our demand for full blown Communist Broadband for all to free Wi-fi? Judas!!

[CEB]

I know that you see a shift to resigned pragmatism as some sort of betrayal, but the level of snark when pressed to give even a vaguely hopeful route into government without going over your red lines is something that even you must see is effectively a sulk.

[Max B Gold]

Not enamoured with Starmer at all but some of the low key policy wonk stuff they are talking about - devolution, having a proper industrial strategy, actual plans for transitioning to net zero instead of just rhetoric - will make a significant number of lives better. Nowhere near as much as is needed, but miles ahead of the endless rolling shambles of Tory government that has f*cked the country for the last 13 years. They won't do mental stuff that immediately costs people thousands of pounds, and they'll do less of the vindictive stuff that ruins lives in a real way.

And if rejoining the EU is your thing, Labour will almost definitely bring us much closer to Europe, with a view to being in the EEA or something similar. That'd give us an immediate improvement in the amount of money the average person will have.

Getting rid of Corbyn doesn't sit right with me but it makes tactical sense and I can't see why it'd be a deal breaker when the alternative is Sunak or even possibly Johnson again.

Cracking policy here, probably stolen from a Tory policy wonks briefcase

Is that a labour policy? I just tried searching for it online and only references I can see are headlines from a decade ago that seemed to have been misreported anyway.

As Nu Nu Labour are keeping their policy powder dry we can but look for clues as to what shape they might take in the unlikely event they ever form a govt.

Here is a recent link to that same Rachel Reeves saying that Labour is not the party for those on benefits.

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/a ... t-for-you/

[CEB]

No, we should definitely keep on with a strategy that keeps power in the hands of the rich.

And Starmers Labour will do exactly that. Because we have to be grown-ups and not spook anyone with radical, fanciful nonsense like free Wi-fi for all or other such lefty utopian dreams.

Again, I know that it’s now very fashionable to be sniffy at the idea of being “grown up”. But how do you reconcile the fact that the people who need to vote Labour for Labour to get into power are indeed “spooked” when there’s a more transformative Labour?

[Max B Gold]

I know that you see a shift to resigned pragmatism as some sort of betrayal, but the level of snark when pressed to give even a vaguely hopeful route into government without going over your red lines is something that even you must see is effectively a sulk.

It isn't a betrayal. They've always been like that.

I'm not sulking I'm just annoyed that people who have the intellectual capacity to know better go along with it as some sort of winning strategy for "the people" and in the process sow yet more seeds to set back the cause of socialism.

[CEB]

I’m not seeing it as a winning strategy “for the people”. Please don’t misrepresent my position. I see it as a horribly depressing reality, and the likely Starmer win will come with an unenthusiastic sigh of the mildest relief imaginable that the tories are out, replaced by something very slightly better.

If I were to join you in the process of sowing seeds for socialism, how many Conservative governments are you happy to live through?

[Max B Gold]

As many as it takes, nobody is saying this is going to be quick and easy.

[Mistadobalina]

Cracking policy here, probably stolen from a Tory policy wonks briefcase

Is that a labour policy? I just tried searching for it online and only references I can see are headlines from a decade ago that seemed to have been misreported anyway.

As Nu Nu Labour are keeping their policy powder dry we can but look for clues as to what shape they might take in the unlikely event they ever form a govt.

Here is a recent link to that same Rachel Reeves saying that Labour is not the party for those on benefits.

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/a ... t-for-you/

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... n-ashworth

There's nothing that contentious about saying it's better for people to be in work then out of work? The amount of working age people who don't have a job is a scandal and has ballooned under the Tories because they are happy pointing to technical low levels of unemployment. The solution obviously needs to be proper structured support to get into training and jobs, carrot not stick, which again seems to be what they are proposing.

[CEB]

Forgive me, but until you can do better than that, getting the tories out and pressing Labour to be better feels more
productive. Good luck to you though. Once your movement gets to the point where it needs to attract mainstream, I wonder if you’ll compromise at all or rip it up and start again?

[CEB]

Is that a labour policy? I just tried searching for it online and only references I can see are headlines from a decade ago that seemed to have been misreported anyway.

As Nu Nu Labour are keeping their policy powder dry we can but look for clues as to what shape they might take in the unlikely event they ever form a govt.

Here is a recent link to that same Rachel Reeves saying that Labour is not the party for those on benefits.

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/a ... t-for-you/

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... n-ashworth

There's nothing that contentious about saying it's better for people to be in work then out of work? The amount of working age people who don't have a job is a scandal and has ballooned under the Tories because they are happy pointing to technical low levels of unemployment. The solution obviously needs to be proper structured support to get into training and jobs, carrot not stick, which again seems to be what they are proposing.

Disagree. As society and technology evolves, we should stop fetishising work and recognise that labour saving technology actually saves labour

[Mistadobalina]

We have massive labour shortages in this country so we clearly aren't there yet. Being in work has evidenced positive impacts on health, mental well being and (in theory) a person's finances, though obviously we have a big problem with work not paying well enough. Companies don't invest enough in new technology in the UK cause they are hooked on cheap workers, getting companies to invest in becoming more productive is something a Labour government definitely needs to do.

[Give it to Jabo]

I would prefer a Centrist Labour Govt. than any Tory administration. I have sympathy for Corbyn, but I think that he enjoys the role of victim a tad. I know Sir Tony Sir Tony Blair should NEVER have gone to war with Bush, but in general, Britain was a fairly agreeable place to live back in those days. Does Starmer communicate as well as Sir Tony Sir Tony Blair? No. Also, the next Election is very far from won. The newspaper battalions will get behind the Tories and Lee Anderson et al will be doing their populist stuff.

I live in a country governed by centerists. Its still shoite.

There are degrees of it….

[CEB]

We have massive labour shortages in this country so we clearly aren't there yet. Being in work has evidenced positive impacts on health, mental well being and (in theory) a person's finances, though obviously we have a big problem with work not paying well enough. Companies don't invest enough in new technology in the UK cause they are hooked on cheap workers, getting companies to invest in becoming more productive is something a Labour government definitely needs to do.

Being in rewarding,secure, tolerable work can have positive impacts, absolutely. Work itself? Jury is out for me, but I suspect not, aside from in absence of stigma, and (somewhat) absence of financial insecurity.

But still the more immediate point remains that if there is a labour shortage, it should be dealt with by focusing on making work a more attractive option, not on punitive measures for people who are out of work

[CEB]

Seeing the rise of AI generated images/programs like midjourney, it’s depressing to realise that rather than work becoming more mechanised, freeeing people up for creativity, it’s actually more the case that creativity is becoming mechanised, freeing up more time for humans to work.

[Max Fowler]

No, we should definitely keep on with a strategy that keeps power in the hands of the rich.

And Starmers Labour will do exactly that. Because we have to be grown-ups and not spook anyone with radical, fanciful nonsense like free Wi-fi for all or other such lefty utopian dreams.

Again, I know that it’s now very fashionable to be sniffy at the idea of being “grown up”. But how do you reconcile the fact that the people who need to vote Labour for Labour to get into power are indeed “spooked” when there’s a more transformative Labour?

12.8m people weren't spooked back in 2017.

And if the fuckers in the back offices had got behind the leadership instead of actively working against them, as has now been confirmed, then it would have been more than 12.8m people, and almost certainly enough to get Labour over the line.

There is another way.

[CEB]

And Starmers Labour will do exactly that. Because we have to be grown-ups and not spook anyone with radical, fanciful nonsense like free Wi-fi for all or other such lefty utopian dreams.

Again, I know that it’s now very fashionable to be sniffy at the idea of being “grown up”. But how do you reconcile the fact that the people who need to vote Labour for Labour to get into power are indeed “spooked” when there’s a more transformative Labour?

12.8m people weren't spooked back in 2017.

And if the fuckers in the back offices had got behind the leadership instead of actively working against them, as has now been confirmed, then it would have been more than 12.8m people, and almost certainly enough to get Labour over the line.

There is another way.

You’re going round in circles now. Nobody is denying that there are sufficient numbers to win Labour the popular vote. What’s not clear is that Labour will win the seats they need to win. It irrelevant whether a more left wing labour gets 12.8m votes or 16m votes, if they’re not votes in the right places.

[Admin]

Have you read all the guff on the labour website? I'm not going to copy and paste it all for you. I wouldn't even expect specifics until an election is imminent. Dont play dumb.

If you can source some of your claims i may have a look at them.

You really need to get over your(corbyn lefty loon labour) two previous electoral failures(thanks for gifting tories a decade of power) and just back the best you can get.

So not even one clear example? Thought not.

Labour are obviously not going to make any policy announcements yet. Nor are they ever going to bring about radical change. But a Labour administration will make a difference. Just the change of Labour Party staff occupying positions withing government departments will have an affect, despite the front-bench team.

But just one example of them saying something, anything, that differentiates them from the Tories is copied below from the Strikes thread. Unless I've missed the Tories talking about abolishing non-dom tax status, I'd say that is pretty different.

But if people really think that it won't make any difference which of the two main parties win at the next election, then so be it.

It's not that Labour and Starmer aren't left wing enough. It's that they're not left wing.

Exactly. Here's the right-wing fascist espousing his neo-liberal ideology again:

Noo Labour Mk 2 might be slightly different but it's not going to deliver much - their whole message is "Sorry, it's still turd sandwich time for you proles for at least another 5 years, but hey, we might use a bit less sh*t between the slices so vote us!".

Hardly a message to inspire the masses is it? It'll get them over the line, possibly with a massive majority but I honestly fear for Starmer and the rest of the supposed grown ups as they'll likely pass up the opportunity to deliver anything like what the great unwashed need and just spend 5 years launching crackdowns, blaming migrants and flag f*cking....

Starmer's policy on non-doms / nurses is just utter guff which avoids the major point surrounding all medical / public sector staff - they're massively underpaid and leaving the profession for private employment. Starmer can create as many nursing places as he wants (there's currently 100K+ vacancies in the NHS) but until it's a career paying decent money, it's jobs that'll go on being unfilled. And it's hard to have any faith in Labour's ability to deliver pay at a living wage when it's doing all it can to ignore every bit of industrial action taking place.

Corbyn's been inevitably thrown under the bus which comes as no surprise - Labour's happy to keep drawing attention to him as it averts everyone's attention from quite how empty their policy bag is. All Starmer's doing now is looking at where focus groups tell him public opinion is and then placing himself there. The purpose of politics was to persuade the voter to follow you - now it's the complete opposite - modern politicians are terrified of reform. Corbyn's 17 manifesto was the most "radical" put in front of the electorate since Thatcher in '79 and Attlee in '45 (and it really wasn't that earth shattering) but it gained a lot of traction particularly amongst younger voters as the message contained an element of hope. Starmer's now made it clear that anyone left of centre can f**k right off. Strange move to alienate so many younger voters but as centerist dad's tell me continually, winning power is everything. Seems a bit pointless to me if you're going to do f*** all with it when you get there.

And a big fat meh to anyone who thinks he'll rip his mask off and turn into Tony Benn when he gets into No 10.

[CEB]

Right - you know your analogy about a turd sandwich?

Well, you know the bit where you acknowledge there’ll be less metaphorical turd to eat under a Labour government than under a Tory one?

there’s no escaping that that’s an admittance that things *will* be less crap under Labour.

Nobody is saying that it’s inspirational - that’s an argument several people seem to be having in their own heads.

Yes, I’d love a much, much more transformative, progressive labour government. Can you outline how we get there?

[CEB]

Again, this isn’t great. I don’t think I’m going to bat for the joys of boring pragmatism. I just want to hear a good case for how a more progressive Labour Party wins under the current system, or how you plan to change the system without Tories staying in power until it’s changed.

[Max B Gold]

We have massive labour shortages in this country so we clearly aren't there yet. Being in work has evidenced positive impacts on health, mental well being and (in theory) a person's finances, though obviously we have a big problem with work not paying well enough. Companies don't invest enough in new technology in the UK cause they are hooked on cheap workers, getting companies to invest in becoming more productive is something a Labour government definitely needs to do.

Being in rewarding,secure, tolerable work can have positive impacts, absolutely. Work itself? Jury is out for me, but I suspect not, aside from in absence of stigma, and (somewhat) absence of financial insecurity.

But still the more immediate point remains that if there is a labour shortage, it should be dealt with by focusing on making work a more attractive option, not on punitive measures for people who are out of work

That would mean replacing capitalism. How do we vote to do that?

Apologies for the snark because you make an essential point about how our lives are defined and treated as mere units of production. Would you become a Bohemian artist under the new free society?

[Admin]

Right - you know your analogy about a turd sandwich?

Well, you know the bit where you acknowledge there’ll be less metaphorical turd to eat under a Labour government than under a Tory one?

there’s no escaping that that’s an admittance that things *will* be less crap under Labour.

Nobody is saying that it’s inspirational - that’s an argument several people seem to be having in their own heads.

Yes, I’d love a much, much more transformative, progressive labour government. Can you outline how we get there?

With a 20 point lead in the polls and a dying tory party on it's electoral arse, you don't think Labour can't afford to be a little more progressive and ambitious in its vision, particularly at this time with the country being an utter skip-fire and an electorate in even direr need of reform than in 2017?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not expecting full on socialism here, but merely standing there and saying you're not as sh*t as the current incumbents does little for anyone. At this rate, they'll get 1 term, fiddle around the edges and be bundled out again by a detoxified tory party. I'm no Blairite, but even he used 95-97 to offer a progressive reforming agenda and alternative to the masses.