c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,671
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 2, 2023 16:40:53 GMT
graham It isn't my party anymore and particularly on the relationship between the UK and Europe and fair voting I have fundamental difficulties with Labour but it's absurd to say they are just like the Tories. It is not at all absurd when Labour fails to reverse Tory policies when presented with opportunities to do so. Blair went further than Thatcher with privatisation. Johnson actually renationalised some rail lines. Yep, they accepted the Thatcherite move right and doubled down on some aspects. This is quite important, in that the Liberals within Labour who clearly don’t care for left wing economics couldn’t sabotage Labour in the post-war period as it would just let in Tories who were also quite left wing. Tories would compete with Labour on housebuilding and opposed Liberal right-wing economics pre-war. Once the right-wingers had taken over the Tories as well, Liberals within Labour could leave to join the SDP, trashing Labour’s polling when they were ahead in the polls, and letting Thatcher do what they always wanted: trash the left wing economics. The same pertains now, except sabotaging the left is costing them more than they realised. It’s already cost membership of the EU… |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,565
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 2, 2023 16:41:04 GMT
Here is the Guardian's assessment of Starmer's record on his leadership campaign pledges:
"How many of Starmer's Labour leadership pledges has he actually kept?
During the Labour leadership contest Keir Starmer famously made 10 pledges. This morning he claimed he had kept “the vast majority” of them. Working out whether he is right is not straightforward, because each pledge contains several components and we don’t yet know what Labour will promise in its manifesto. But Starmer is probably overstating his success rate. Looking at each pledge, and taking into account which element was most significant at the time, five of them are arguable kept, another two are partly kept, and three have been broken.
Starmer has always defended the right of politicians to change their minds, and he says two of the pledges have been abandoned because economic circumstances have changed.
A 50%, or 70%, compliance rate does not sound great, but he is probably doing a lot better than Rishi Sunak. Sunak proposed dozens of policies when he was running for the Tory leadership contest in the summer. He did not issue any manifesto when he stood a second time, uncontested, in the autumn, and No 10 subsequently said the summer pledges would all have to be reviewed.
Here is my assessment of Starmer’s record.
Pledge 1 – economic justice
What it says: “Increase income tax for the top 5% of earners, reverse the Tories’ cuts in corporation tax and clamp down on tax avoidance, particularly of large corporations. No stepping back from our core principles.”
Kept or broken?: PARTLY KEPT. Labour under Starmer is committed to tackling tax avoidance, and reversing corporation tax isn’t just Labour policy, but has become Tory policy too. But Starmer is no longer promising tax rises for the top 5% of earners, which was the key element of this package.
Pledge 2 – social justice
What it says: “Abolish universal credit and end the Tories’ cruel sanctions regime. Set a national goal for wellbeing to make health as important as GDP; Invest in services that help shift to a preventative approach. Stand up for universal services and defend our NHS. Support the abolition of tuition fees and invest in lifelong learning.”
Kept or broken?: BROKEN. The tuition fees promise was the most salient of these pledges, in the context of the leadership contest, and that has now gone. (See 9.01am.) Labour has also clarified its position on universal credit, saying it will reform it, but not abolish it. (No one ever expected the party to tear up the whole system, but Starmer was happy to use the word “abolish”, as Labour had in 2019).
Pledge 3 – climate justice
What it says: “Put the Green New Deal at the heart of everything we do. There is no issue more important to our future than the climate emergency. A Clean Air Act to tackle pollution locally. Demand international action on climate rights.”
Kept or broken?: KEPT. A climate investment pledge worth £28bn a year is one of Starmer’s biggest election commitments.
Pledge 4 – promote peace and human rights
What it says: “No more illegal wars. Introduce a Prevention of Military Intervention Act and put human rights at the heart of foreign policy. Review all UK arms sales and make us a force for international peace and justice.”
Kept or broken?: PARTLY KEPT. Starmer has not backed any illegal wars. But he has done little to advance these proposals either since he was elected leader three years ago, and Labour MPs were ordered to abstain on the overseas operation bill, which was hard to square with the spirit of this pledge.
Pledge 5 – common ownership
What it says: “Public services should be in public hands, not making profits for shareholders. Support common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water; end outsourcing in our NHS, local government and justice system.”
Kept or broken?: BROKEN. Starmer has accepted this. On the Today programme this morning, when asked about his pledges, he was open about this. He said:
I’m not ideological about it. We have said when it comes to railways, for example, we will bring railways back into public ownership as the contracts expire. We’ve set up GB Energy which will be a publicly owned company.
But when I looked in the middle of the energy price crisis last year, I asked my team to work out how much it would cost for us to nationalise the energy companies, and what benefit [there] would then be for those that were paying very high bills, and the answer was, it cost a lot but you couldn’t really reduce the bills by doing it. So I made a political choice that we wouldn’t do that.
Asked about water companies, he said nationalising them would cost a “huge” amount and that tighter regulation could address the water quality problem.
Pledge 6 – defend migrants’ rights
What it says: “Full voting rights for EU nationals. Defend free movement as we leave the EU. An immigration system based on compassion and dignity. End indefinite detention and call for the closure of centres such as Yarl’s Wood.”
Kept or broken?: BROKEN. Free movement was a key issue for Labour members in 2019-20, and Starmer admits that it is no longer something he supports. On the Today programme this morning he argued that what he really meant was “defend free movement until we leave the EU”, but that is not what he said at the time.
Pledge 7 – strengthen workers’ rights and trade unions
What it says: “Work shoulder to shoulder with trade unions to stand up for working people, tackle insecure work and low pay. Repeal the Trade Union Act. Oppose Tory attacks on the right to take industrial action and the weakening of workplace rights.”
Kept or broken?: KEPT. Labour is proposing measures to strengthen workers’ rights, and it has voted against the government’s anti-strikes bill.
Pledge 8 – radical devolution of power, wealth and opportunity
What it says: “Push power, wealth and opportunity away from Whitehall. A federal system to devolve powers – including through regional investment banks and control over regional industrial strategy. Abolish the House of Lords – replace it with an elected chamber of regions and nations.”
Kept or broken?: KEPT. In December last year Starmer welcomed a long and detailed report from Gordon Brown saying how this could happen. Some observers suspect that, in power, Labour would shelve Lords reform, but currently this is still very much on track.
Pledge 9 – equality
What it says: “Pull down obstacles that limit opportunities and talent. We are the party of the Equal Pay Act, Sure Start, BAME representation and the abolition of Section 28 – we must build on that for a new decade.”
Kept or broken?: KEPT. Under Starmer Labour has developed a series of policies to promote the equalities agenda.
Pledge 10 – effective opposition to the Tories
What it says: “Forensic, effective opposition to the Tories in Parliament – linked up to our mass membership and a professional election operation. Never lose sight of the votes ‘lent’ to the Tories in 2019. Unite our party, promote pluralism and improve our culture. Robust action to eradicate the scourge of antisemitism. Maintain our collective links with the unions.”
Kept or broken?: KEPT. Labour’s candidate selection suggests promoting pluralism is not a priority for Starmer (leftwingers are being purged), but no one can deny that the party is providing effective opposition to the Tories. The latest Politico poll of polls has Labour 14 points ahead.
|
|
|
|
Post by graham on May 2, 2023 16:42:42 GMT
Any Labour supporters like to step in and support your party? There are many on here who prefer the purity of the totally clear conscience you can can have by sitting in impotent opposition, never doing anything but free to moan about the Tory government. I have no time for that attitude. But that is a non sequitur. Most of us now appalled by Starmer are not Corbynites - and never have been. To propse policies which would have been acceptable to the likes of Denis Healey, Roy Hattersley , John Smith implies no desire to sit in permanent opposition. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,671
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 2, 2023 16:46:45 GMT
Pledge 9 – equality What it says: “Pull down obstacles that limit opportunities and talent. We are the party of the Equal Pay Act, Sure Start, BAME representation and the abolition of Section 28 – we must build on that for a new decade.” Kept or broken?: KEPT. Under Starmer Labour has developed a series of policies to promote the equalities agenda. This is the thing though. As long as “something” is done on equality, the right will be happy, that’s the promise “kept”, even if inequality keeps rising overall. The left would like to return to the situation where inequality goes into reverse, instead of maintaining the Thatcherite approach with some Liberal/pro-middle class bits tacked on. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,671
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 2, 2023 16:49:27 GMT
Any Labour supporters like to step in and support your party? There are many on here who prefer the purity of the totally clear conscience you can can have by sitting in impotent opposition, never doing anything but free to moan about the Tory government. I have no time for that attitude. Again, this is the problem with the right, they only use Tories as a reference point and ignore all the inequalities that result from a more Blairite approach. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,605
|
Post by steve on May 2, 2023 16:50:48 GMT
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,352
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on May 2, 2023 16:53:25 GMT
Delta poll
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,352
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on May 2, 2023 16:56:00 GMT
Last 4 polls, looks like Labour have steadied the ship and small increases in three of them
Delta: 15% (+2)
Opinium: 18% (+4)
Redfield: 17% (+2)
Omnisis: 17% (-)
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,605
|
Post by steve on May 2, 2023 16:58:42 GMT
pjw1961I have to say if you replace "public hands" with " community controlled " those pledges both broken and unbroken look remarkably similar to the lib dems.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,297
|
Post by Danny on May 2, 2023 17:00:29 GMT
Sorry, but that's anti-science nonsense. We now know, from serology testing, that we got nowhere near 'heard immunity' in the earlier waves, because far too few people got infected. I'd love to see some proof of that, because I have seen exactly none. Pretty much all the antibody tests I have seen results posted for take the result '1' as their benchline for previous infections. This is all the manufacturers guarantee for such tests, that a normalised result of 1 means you have enough antibody to fight off an infection. However actual test results go all the way down to 0.0001. So if someone scores 0.1, then officially they have not had covid. Altough at least one group has argued that 0.1 should be accepted as having been infected, even though they couldnt with evidence prove it except as a statistical average. However that still begs the question what to do with the 0.01 results, and so on, all of which are written off as negative. But thats the sort of score you would get after a year or two. So no. I have seen eg ONS results which all are based on people scoring 1 or above. In 2020 they used to publish data and you could see the numbers go up and then down again. They did not publish them as personal scores but simply as the proportion above 1 and so deemed positive. But thats pure nonsense in terms of whether or not they had had covid. Clearly there is no debating it with you, who refuses to hear anything else. Even at the time in 2020 there was argument whether lockdown was called so late in S. England that the natural peak of the epidemic had already been reached. This was based upon the timings of peaks in deaths compared to cases at the point of lockdown. Then in the autumn when schools reopened after most restrictions had been lifted, the epidemic resumed in a modest form in N. England but not in the south. And the obvious reason for that difference is that the disease was spreading S to N across England and had achieved something at or close to herd immunity in the South by the time of lockdown. Whereas in the N it did not, and so we know lockdown was called more or less on the cusp in the south. But we also know it would therefore have died down by itself had we not intervened. Omicron of course only really took hold after the UK had mostly been given massive doses of vaccine, and boosters. You have posted a lot of stuff about how such a program would have produced immune imprinting on the vaccine, which was not of course based upon the omicron strain. People had already been vaccinated against the wrong strain. If your imprinting hypothesis is true, then that would have prevented them becoming properly immune to omicron. Boosters were given in 2021, before omicron even existed! What they did do was switch to a different vaccine, but still based upon the original strain. I didnt say vaccines cause deaths. I said the approach we adopted was quite possibly no better than had we done nothing. I have no problem with a vaccination campaign as and when it became available. Though not one of repeat boosters to the wrong strain. The consensus has been that the original two dose regime provided as good protection against severe disease as adding all the boosters. You might have noticed that government has pretty much abandoned the booster campaign, because medicina has quietly accepted it wasnt doing any good in most cases. (The exception is those at high risk who have weak immune responses) I have learnt from the evidence, and you arent helping your case with repeated claims there is lots of it on your side without having some handy links to back that up. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,605
|
Post by steve on May 2, 2023 17:00:30 GMT
Steady upward movement in the lib dem vote share perhaps those hundreds of thousands of vote lib dems posters are reminding people we exist.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,671
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 2, 2023 17:07:21 GMT
And another one bites the dust on the top rate of tax pledge. So Tories to the left of Labour on Corporation Tax and now no different on higher rate of tax either. Labour is left with Non Dom (which is inconclusive for how much it raises especially given they are not abolishing it but reducing to 5 years) and windfall tax which may or may not be quantifiable come the next election. Starmer saying Labour are now not a "tax and spend party" makes it pretty clear to me there would be little progression under a Labour government for all the things that centrists and LOC on this forum want to see happen. Starmer this morning said the economy needs to grow to increase tax revenue, which roughly is a proportion of the total economy size. So his objective is growth. Of course the biggest restriction on Uk growth of the last 5 years has been brexit, and to reverse that you need to join the EU. This does not seem to be on his list.
Well this is the thing Danny. We are now joining another trade zone, which it seems might make rejoining the EU problematic. We might not even be able to rejoin the customs union.* Have you got a good plan for leaving the CPTPP? Maybe another referendum to leave the CPTPP and rejoin the EU, businesses having to undo the links they fostered under CPTPP, then rejoining the EU who might not be too keen to have us back, given we had not only left the EU but now left the CPTPP as well? I mean it’s possible in theory, but in practice?… Corbyn, who the Blairites were not exactly keen on, was perhaps ironically possibly the last chance to stay in the EU without all the extra trauma. * there is a chance the EU might do a deal with CPTPP, in which case that may not assist the rejoin argument either. P.s. do find myself wondering if Starmer, like Blair, might be quite Anglo in outlook. Is there a chance he might try for a trade deal with the US? |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,352
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on May 2, 2023 17:12:33 GMT
Steady upward movement in the lib dem vote share perhaps those hundreds of thousands of vote lib dems posters are reminding people we exist. If we use the same extrapolation some were doing in the last week or so when the tories were closing the lead, the lib-dems could be the largest party by Christmas 😀 |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,565
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 2, 2023 17:23:47 GMT
There are many on here who prefer the purity of the totally clear conscience you can can have by sitting in impotent opposition, never doing anything but free to moan about the Tory government. I have no time for that attitude. But that is a non sequitur. Most of us now appalled by Starmer are not Corbynites - and never have been. To propse policies which would have been acceptable to the likes of Denis Healey, Roy Hattersley , John Smith implies no desire to sit in permanent opposition. Worth remembering that Healey, Hattersley and Smith played prominent roles in the 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992 elections, all of which Labour lost. Anyway, I didn't say anything about Corbyn - if moving to the left won Labour an election I would support it, if moving to the right wins Labour an election I would support it. I want the Tories out of office and that means everyone who is not a Tory voting for the candidate most likely to beat them in every seat they hold. Anything else is a vote for the continuation of the status quo. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,352
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on May 2, 2023 17:26:46 GMT
Sue Gray report delayed, it's uncanny how that phrase has so often been used
"Sources suggested that, despite originally backing publication, Case had become uncomfortable that a senior official could face such an investigation after they had already left the civil service, with the Cabinet Office so far unable to explain under what process the inquiry took place.
Senior civil servants were also said to have been concerned about releasing such a politically charged report just days before the local elections, potentially in breach of purdah rules
Allies of Gray said the investigation, which they claim was politically motivated as she had not worked in a sensitive role for five years, was designed to put pressure on the advisory committee on business appointments (Acoba) to delay her start date"
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,565
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 2, 2023 17:29:39 GMT
There are many on here who prefer the purity of the totally clear conscience you can can have by sitting in impotent opposition, never doing anything but free to moan about the Tory government. I have no time for that attitude. Again, this is the problem with the right, they only use Tories as a reference point and ignore all the inequalities that result from a more Blairite approach. I am not on the right, unless you regard everyone more right wing than Corbyn as 'the right'. In the 2010 leadership election I voted for Ed Miliband, who was the furthest left candidate who wasn't Diane Abbott and in 2015 for Burnham, the furthest left candidate who wasn't Corbyn. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,671
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 2, 2023 17:30:28 GMT
But that is a non sequitur. Most of us now appalled by Starmer are not Corbynites - and never have been. To propse policies which would have been acceptable to the likes of Denis Healey, Roy Hattersley , John Smith implies no desire to sit in permanent opposition. Worth remembering that Healey, Hattersley and Smith played prominent roles in the 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992 elections, all of which Labour lost. In terms of a scientific approach, can’t just attribute the loss of an election to the policies, when there are other variables in play. You have to account for the other variables. There can be a variety of reasons one might lose an election, even if people might like many of the policies. E.g. if there’s a split party, competence issues etc… In this case, there was a big problem with splitting the vote. Foot was doing well in polling until SDP left and trashed things, and the split vote remained an issue thereafter. Another issue, is that the Tories also benefitted from a global boom as a result of the collapse in oil prices. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,565
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 2, 2023 17:32:43 GMT
pjw1961 I have to say if you replace "public hands" with " community controlled " those pledges both broken and unbroken look remarkably similar to the lib dems. Now you are sounding like Carfrew  |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,120
|
Post by domjg on May 2, 2023 17:34:00 GMT
Again, this is the problem with the right, they only use Tories as a reference point and ignore all the inequalities that result from a more Blairite approach. I am not on the right, unless you regard everyone more right wing than Corbyn as 'the right'. In the 2010 leadership election I voted for Ed Miliband, who was the furthest left candidate who wasn't Diane Abbott and in 2015 for Burnham, the furthest left candidate who wasn't Corbyn. I guess you have to read the Telegraph and believe in brexit to be real leftwinger |
|
Dave
Member
... I'm dreaming dreams, I'm scheming schemes, I'm building castles high ..
Posts: 818
|
Post by Dave on May 2, 2023 17:34:59 GMT
Oh so you're happy with these far right friendly tories instead? Oh OK, at least we know where you stand. Not at all. I do not want Tory policies from Starmer anymore than I want them from Sunak. Boris Johnson and Starmer do at least share one thing in common - both are compulsive liars. I will support neither. It is a bit like being told I should vote for Herman Goering because he is not quite as bad as Adolf Hitler or Heinrich Himmler. Sorry Graham, but that’s ridiculous. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,671
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 2, 2023 17:38:24 GMT
Again, this is the problem with the right, they only use Tories as a reference point and ignore all the inequalities that result from a more Blairite approach. I am not on the right, unless you regard everyone more right wing than Corbyn as 'the right'. In the 2010 leadership election I voted for Ed Miliband, who was the furthest left candidate who wasn't Diane Abbott and in 2015 for Burnham, the furthest left candidate who wasn't Corbyn. Well, as may be apparent, I am not big on the campaigning for votes thing myself, and go more by the arguments than by voting, since the latter frequently has little effect at the individual level.* Also people can be mistaken as to what parties or votes represent, as has been the case for me in the past. Many on the right of the party barely complain about the Thatcherite economics adopted by Blair, even if they voted Labour and are not overly vexed by the possibility of a return to such things. That said, I retain the admittedly possibly fanciful hope, that maybe Starmer is a bit more left wing than he is letting on. (Though I don’t know how much I might bet on it…) * also, I don’t know whether you have noticed this, but people’s votes seem to change retrospectively over time. A lot of people seemed to vote LD in 2010 but there seem to be a lot less saying so these days, a quirk of polling rarely commented-on. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,565
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 2, 2023 17:38:45 GMT
Worth remembering that Healey, Hattersley and Smith played prominent roles in the 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992 elections, all of which Labour lost. In terms of a scientific approach, can’t just attribute the loss of an election to the policies, when there are other variables in play. You have to account for the other variables. There can be a variety of reasons one might lose an election, even if people might like many of the policies. E.g. if there’s a split party, competence issues etc… In this case, there was a big problem with splitting the vote. Foot was doing well in polling until SDP left and trashed things, and the split vote remained an issue thereafter. Another issue, is that the Tories also benefitted from a global boom as a result of the collapse in oil prices. Since 1922 Labour have had 15 leaders - only three of whom have managed to win an election with a majority. The reality is Labour generally lose. I would like them to stop making excuses and start winning. |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,120
|
Post by domjg on May 2, 2023 17:40:33 GMT
There are many on here who prefer the purity of the totally clear conscience you can can have by sitting in impotent opposition, never doing anything but free to moan about the Tory government. I have no time for that attitude. But that is a non sequitur. Most of us now appalled by Starmer are not Corbynites - and never have been. To propse policies which would have been acceptable to the likes of Denis Healey, Roy Hattersley , John Smith implies no desire to sit in permanent opposition. Just let the man win the f*ing election because no one else is waiting in the wings to take it from the tories (not that that appears to bother you) A year or two after that you can judge. Openness and honesty unfortunately are not that useful in winning Labour elections with the English. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,352
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on May 2, 2023 17:42:12 GMT
I voted Labour in 2015, 2017 and 2019, even though I knew 2019 was hopeless and I thought Corbyn was a terrible leader. Individual policies were mostly good, but there were far too many and not enough thought they were realistic/deliverable, but I still voted Labour
Unfortunately friends who had been life long Labour voters told me they couldn't vote for Corbyn in 2019
I think they were wrong and their decision and many like them led to a Tory Government with a huge majority, but they of course had the right to do what they thought was right
I will probably vote Labour in the next General Election, but my priority will be to get rid of the tories
I hope people think long and hard at the next election as to who they vote for, but if people don't vote Labour they of course have the right to do what they think is right, I just hope it doesn't result in another tory Government
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,671
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 2, 2023 17:49:08 GMT
I am not on the right, unless you regard everyone more right wing than Corbyn as 'the right'. In the 2010 leadership election I voted for Ed Miliband, who was the furthest left candidate who wasn't Diane Abbott and in 2015 for Burnham, the furthest left candidate who wasn't Corbyn. I guess you have to read the Telegraph and believe in brexit to be real leftwinger It’s useful to read all the papers to get a better idea of what all the sides are spinning Dom. I got the idea from someone who went on to be a Labour MP. We had shared a house at Oxford, and meeting up for lunch in London some years later, he bought all the broadsheets to read, to compare how they presented the news. I adopted a similar approach and it does make it a bit easier to predict things. (Like the way the Tories were going to try and make it harder to rejoin the EU). Incidentally, many on the left are indeed not keen on the EU, or indeed on many trade deals, as they tend to lock in right wing pro-capital economics. I am not so left wing in that regard though, I like things like Free Movement and the Single Market. |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on May 2, 2023 17:52:59 GMT
Here is the Guardian's assessment of Starmer's record on his leadership campaign pledges: I'd say the Guardian (Andrew Sparrow) was being overgenerous on that assessment- giving a "partly kept" on economics when clearly the big pledges in that were CT and higher rate tax. Clamping down on tax avoidance is one of those fluffy pledges that everyone makes. Very generous on workers rights as well given the direction of travel and I'd suggest standing "shoulder to shoulder" with unions is not consistent with Shadow Cabinet not being allowed on pickets lines or telling people you don't agree with the strikes (nurses & doctors). Pledge 10 isn't so much a pledge but if you had to take the meat from it he hasn't run a pluralist united party and TBC on mass membership- TBC because between elections it does drop and then people join at election time but it has been consistently dropping now to 377k paid up at March NEC. Not been too professional either on the IT side with the lost membership lists and only now seem to be getting into gear with their social media. Also chasing what seems to me to be an increasingly hopeless legal case against people accused of the Labour leaks and still losing on various pre case actions which each time they lose costs the party a 6 figure sum in legal costs. Also pushing links with the unions to their limits with an undercurrent of shall we disaffiliate or not and lost one already. Ignoring the waffle and the pledges that there are no reason to break anyway (mainly because they don't cost money), the only meaty one he can said to have really kept is the Green New Deal by putting a figure on it, but it remains to be seen if this is watered down or not and what sort of creative accounting goes into this. You have to remember these are all being broken even before he gets into Downing Street so what's a few more when he gets there and why should I believe any pledges he makes at the next General Election? On the point you made on tuition fees I tend to agree with you that there are other priorities with limited money but that should have been part of his vision when he was elected. My preferred option would be free tuition fees (and grants) for subjects/vocations in which we have a desperate need for qualified people, alternative routes to employment training for those who are mostly doing Uni for the "experience" or to have a qualification that might help them get a job. Probably interest free on the loans for any other higher education. That's not an ideal situation but given the desperate state on the NHS, homelessness, food banks, mental health issues etc etc then you have to prioritise, although without even the smallest attempt at wealth redistribution things won't improve anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on May 2, 2023 17:54:03 GMT
@dannyiexile - quite hilarious that you, with your stream of evidence free posts, are now attempting to twist this completely to suggest that I'm the one making unfounded assertions without evidence.
Suggest you have a whizz through the covid thread to see just how many papers I've cited over the years, then do a compare and contrast with your own efforts.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,671
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 2, 2023 17:56:34 GMT
In terms of a scientific approach, can’t just attribute the loss of an election to the policies, when there are other variables in play. You have to account for the other variables. There can be a variety of reasons one might lose an election, even if people might like many of the policies. E.g. if there’s a split party, competence issues etc… In this case, there was a big problem with splitting the vote. Foot was doing well in polling until SDP left and trashed things, and the split vote remained an issue thereafter. Another issue, is that the Tories also benefitted from a global boom as a result of the collapse in oil prices. Since 1922 Labour have had 15 leaders - only three of whom have managed to win an election with a majority. The reality is Labour generally lose. I would like them to stop making excuses and start winning. The losses are not in question. The REASON for the losses, is something else, and can’t really ignore the possibility that it is sometimes right wing sabotage within the party.* For me, I am not trying to tell people how to vote. I am just exploring the issues, how they are perceived, what effects policies have, including on future party prospects, how much politics is shaped by gaslighting etc. For me, whether Labour simply get in or not is only one of many aspects. * which affects other parties too. E.g. those Tories giving Major a hard time in the Nineties, and at times betrayals that turned very bad, e.g. Orange Bookers in 2010. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on May 2, 2023 18:20:51 GMT
People on the Left despised Thatcherism - I share the view of those who saw her as an Anti-Christ figure - what is the point of voting for a Labour government which would fail to move the dial to the left of where she left it?
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,671
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 2, 2023 18:22:00 GMT
Really fascinating article here on Alzheimers - www.theguardian.com/society/2023/apr/26/uk-on-verge-of-new-dawn-for-dementia-treatments-says-taskforce-chairOn the face of it, this is a good news story. It hones in on the new 'wonder-drug' which is claimed will herald the start of a new dawn in dementia treatment, but there are issues here. The published results from the lecanemab trials are decidedly mixed, with high side effects (fatal, in several cases) and while the article suggests we are at the start of a new era of drug development, many experts in the field seem to be coalescing around a rather radical alternative; that the solutions lies not within the realms of big pharma drug development, but in the arena of good old fashioned public health education. Dementia is increasingly being recognised as part of inflammatory aging, and the solutions have been with us all along; good diet, exercise, mental stimulation, reduction of alcohol, sugar, avoidance of infection, etc etc - just a healthy life style that reduces the stress on the bodies immune system and restricts the inflammatory responses that create the dementia problem, along with many others. Unfortunately, since really quite recently, western society has been obsessed with medicalising all health related issues, with the pharma industry complicit in this and only too willing to create the perception that development of very expensive drugs is the answer to every condition, rather than the unglamorous and extremely cheap healthy lifestyle measures. We've seen something similar with covid, where the false answer is to rely entirely on vaccines and abandon all public health measures, going against the lessons learned from a century of fighting infectious pathogens. With lecanemab there has been an epic amount of 'pitch rolling' by the manufacturers, who see this as a golden goose, but it's vital for the future physical and financial health of western societies that we don't completely fall for the idea that permitting large numbers of people to become sick through unhealthy lifestyles is going to be fine because the pharma industry will have a pill for every ill. 100% with you on the part I have highlighted, but worth mentioning that there is also a genetic element to dementia vulnerability, as there is with most diseases. We also need to do something about aggressive food and retail industry practices aimed at maximising profit at the expense of health, along the lines of what was done with the tobacco industry. It is not unusual for people to point out that there can be a genetic component to some diseases, and therefore to conclude that the sort of things alec is talking about might therefore not always be that efficacious, since they might be more likely to get the disease anyway. However, in this instance, if you look at the science, then one explanation for dementia is that it results from the brain’s attempt to fight infection. And people with a certain gene, might be more susceptible to infection in the brain, as it seems it might let things like HPV cross the blood-brain barrier more readily. Whereupon the sort of things Alec is on about, might become even MORE necessary if you have the dodgy gene. Thus in that case it might be better to rewrite your sentence below, to express more agreement, with an “and” replacing the “but”: “ 100% with you on the part I have highlighted, but and worth mentioning that there is also a genetic element to dementia vulnerability, as there is with most diseases.” |
|
