|
|
Post by graham on Jul 19, 2023 9:47:14 GMT
But if their endorsement was delayed until close of nominations - a month before Polling Day - Starmer would be trapped. It would be too late to deselect those candidates or to choose new replacements. What could Starmer do about it under such circomstances? It would also create an almighty row - and potential split right at the outset of the official election campaign. Effectively the Campaign group could have him over a barrel. That would be seen as typical socialist campaign group factionalism, they can't see the wood because of the trees. Really isn't it about time we rose above this internal tribal stuff. But it would be no different to what Starmer and the Blairites have been doing. |
|
|
|
Post by kay9 on Jul 19, 2023 9:48:06 GMT
How much has this stunt cost us,seems to me basic planning is to find out where you would put the boat first Incompetence thy name is tory 'Two giant cruise ships set to house 1,000 asylum seekers were unable to find anywhere to dock and have been returned to their owners, a senior source has told Sky News. ¿Scoop? There was a cruise ship in Edinburgh, for about a year, housing Ukrainian refugees. The Scottish Government’s contract for the use of this ship came to an end on July 11, 2023. About 6 weeks ago, Westminster level of Government ‘decided’ that they would take over the contract and that the ship would remain in Edinburgh. That did not work out. About a month ago, The Daily Mail reported that this ship would go ‘probably’ to Teesside. Having finished its contractual period in Edinburgh, it up-anchored and left. Teesside is its current location. (There was a second ship, moored in Glasgow, performing the same function. It is now not there - it may be the second ship reported ‘probably’ going to Liverpool - according to the Mail.) |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,392
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Jul 19, 2023 9:52:50 GMT
In those circumstances Starmer/Labour would have no choice but to expel them. They would, probably quite rightly, see much bigger damage being done to Labour through out the country in electoral terms if they didn't. Rightly or wrongly Corbyn is seen as toxic by many of the people Labour want to vote for them On the other hand Starmer showing himself a 'tough' leader in dealing with it would probably play quite well. If he doesn't he would be seen as weak as Sunak, who he definitely wouldn't want to be compared with Personally can't see the Campaign group going for it precisely because of that If he expelled them , Starmer would effectively be throwing away circa 30 seats which could well be enough to push Labour below 300. Such MPs would not feel obliged to support him on a Kings Speech - indeed might be minded to vote him down. 'Revenge is a dish best served cold.' If he doesn't act he could fail to gain a 100 plus seats in the General Election I very much doubt they would want to bring down a Labour Government, but if they do I think Starmer still wouldn't back down, electorally he couldn't afford to. Personally really can't see the Campaign group would support Corbyn openly in the first place, but if they do they'll eventually end up like the SDP |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 19, 2023 9:56:51 GMT
They won't because they would all be expelled from the Labour Party for endorsing someone standing against an official Labour candidate (something you approved of yesterday in respect of Alistair Campbell). Your suggestion would lead to the extinction of the far left in the PLP. Starmer would be delighted but John McDonnell is not that stupid. But if their endorsement was delayed until close of nominations - a month before Polling Day - Starmer would be trapped. It would be too late to deselect those candidates or to choose new replacements. What could Starmer do about it under such circomstances? It would also create an almighty row - and potential split right at the outset of the official election campaign. Effectively the Campaign group could have him over a barrel. No. They would be expelled, no question. They might get to sit one term in parliament as independents, but history suggests they would be gone thereafter. What you are calling for is suicide by the left. I don't want to see that. Labour needs a left wing presence in parliament to remind it what it is for. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2023 10:01:21 GMT
expatr The only caveat I'd apply to the various scandals enveloping the media personalities you mention is that only in Schofield's case can we be fairly certain of the facts about what he did. He himself has more or less confessed to them and resigned. In the case of Edwards and Wootton, aren't we still in the trial by tabloid stage where facts remain both disputed and unproven? In Edwards case he himself has made no comment about the allegations, some already denied by interested parties and Wootton has flatly denied them. Probably best to await the findings of the internal investigations into the allegations before reaching judgement. Which internal investigation would that be ?
In the case of Huw Edwards, the BBC took him off air and initiated an investigation.
In the case of Dan Wootton, GBNews (which, like the BBC & ITV, is also a licensed broadcaster regulated by Ofcom) has declined to investigate, and allowed Wootton to remain on air, giving him a platform to denounce the allegations as a leftwing conspiracy against himself and GBNews.
|
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jul 19, 2023 10:04:01 GMT
But if their endorsement was delayed until close of nominations - a month before Polling Day - Starmer would be trapped. It would be too late to deselect those candidates or to choose new replacements. What could Starmer do about it under such circomstances? It would also create an almighty row - and potential split right at the outset of the official election campaign. Effectively the Campaign group could have him over a barrel. No. They would be expelled, no question. They might get to sit one term in parliament as independents, but history suggests they would be gone thereafter. What you are calling for is suicide by the left. I don't want to see that. Labour needs a left wing presence in parliament to remind it what it is for. Depending on the numbers such a group might be able to keep Starmer out of Downing St.Post -election were Labour to be on circa 290 seats with Campaign group on a further 30, it is not unlikely that negotiations would follow . The Campaign MPs could simply say - If you want our votes, you have to restore the Whip to us all - including Corbyn.' Such a row at the outset of the election campaign could seriously destabilise Labour and add credence to renewed Tory claims of 'a Coalition of Chaos.' Starmer would have brought it all on himself.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Jul 19, 2023 10:19:01 GMT
Long term councillor Susan Hall selected as London mayoral candidate for the tories.
Following the storming of the United States Capitol by supporters of Donald Trump in an attempted coup inJanuary 2021, Hall compared the attack to other British politicians' opposition to Brexit.
Because everyone remembers when remain supporters stormed Westminster intent on stopping the Brexit confirmation!
So she's bonkers then!
Should fit in perfectly.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 19, 2023 10:23:42 GMT
No. They would be expelled, no question. They might get to sit one term in parliament as independents, but history suggests they would be gone thereafter. What you are calling for is suicide by the left. I don't want to see that. Labour needs a left wing presence in parliament to remind it what it is for. Depending on the numbers such a group might be able to keep Starmer out of Downing St.Post -election were Labour to be on circa 290 seats with Campaign group on a further 30, it is not unlikely that negotiations would follow . The Campaign MPs could simply say - If you want our votes, you have to restore the Whip to us all - including Corbyn.' Such a row at the outset of the election campaign could seriously destabilise Labour and add credence to renewed Tory claims of 'a Coalition of Chaos.' Starmer would have brought it all on himself.
Your scenario has zero credibility, so I won't waste time on it further. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Jul 19, 2023 10:27:10 GMT
"the most dire economic inheritance of any incoming government" Rachel Reeves
The Labour government of 1945 inherited a dire economy.
Still managed not to be Tories
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 19, 2023 10:27:26 GMT
Not that I'm canvassing for the Green Party or anything because that would be pointless on a forum of political aware people who know their own minds, but unless you're in one of the 20% of seats that would decide a General election, and probably 10% when it comes down to reading the opinion polls even half way correctly on UNS, then it doesn't much matter who you vote for. If you are in the 80% then you can send some sort of message with a free conscience. Mind you I might be being inconsistent here because I voted Labour in 2010 and 2015 even though Greens were probably nearer my politics and I was in a seat that has been Labour since 1918 and isn't going to change any time soon. This is very much how I'm thinking at the moment. My seat is a Tory/Labour battleground but it's been Tory since the dawn of time and, although Labour could very well win it on current polling, if they do prevail it's inconceivable that they won't have secured a very healthy majority. Yes, I'd prefer a Labour MP, and it's always nice to oust a sitting Tory, but in terms of the bigger picture it's difficult to see what the incentive is in voting for a party whose policy platform doesn't appeal when who governs the country ultimately isn't going to hinge on how my constituency votes. I think this is something that's often overlooked in the frequent discussions around how LOC folk might vote. To cast people as either sensible pragmatists or foolish and selfish idealists is, I think, to overlook the fact that people might have many different motivations for voting as they do and that they might make different calculations based on where they live, the marginality of their seat and all sorts of other factors. Also, if I'm honest, I've begun to resent being forced to vote in accordance with what FPTP demands. Doing so only really feels like a tacit endorsement of a voting system that I fundamentally don't agree with and which disenfranchises much of the country. I know that's the game, but if I'm always bemoaning the game then I wonder if it's perhaps time to stop playing. I can assure both of you, because I know lots of them, that committed Tory voters waste very little time agonising over this sort of thing. They just go out and vote Tory whether the candidate is from the left, right or middle of that party and regardless of what policies the party is advocating at the time. That's why they win so often. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Jul 19, 2023 10:31:02 GMT
"Depending on the numbers such a group might be able to keep Starmer out of Downing St.Post -election were Labour to be on circa 290 seats with Campaign group on a further 30, it is not unlikely that negotiations would follow . The Campaign MPs could simply say - If you want our votes, you have to restore the Whip to us all - including Corbyn.'"
This has been a party political broadcast on behalf of the Tory Party!
In the exceptionally unlikely event that Labour were 30 seats short of an overall majority I fundamentally expect them to seek support from the Lib dems and green rather than a bunch of crusty old no achievement neo trot dinosaurs.
But time will tell.
|
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jul 19, 2023 10:34:02 GMT
I personally know a former Labour PPC for the area where Starmer grew up. Starmer was then too young to vote though his parents almost certainly voted for this candidate. He is pondering whether to intervene at some point - to the effect that he is pleased not to have ever had Starmer's vote. Basically he says he would rather not have had the support of such a devious compulsive liar.
|
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jul 19, 2023 10:39:57 GMT
"Depending on the numbers such a group might be able to keep Starmer out of Downing St.Post -election were Labour to be on circa 290 seats with Campaign group on a further 30, it is not unlikely that negotiations would follow . The Campaign MPs could simply say - If you want our votes, you have to restore the Whip to us all - including Corbyn.'" This has been a party political broadcast on behalf of the Tory Party! In the exceptionally unlikely event that Labour were 30 seats short of an overall majority I fundamentally expect them to seek support from the Lib dems and green rather than a bunch of crusty old no achievement neo trot dinosaurs. But time will tell. Starmer has been doing party political broadcasts for the Tories for a good year now by adopting their policies! |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 19, 2023 10:40:58 GMT
I'm in favour of some form of PR too, though I don't want to get involved in what form is best. It's interesting that various forms have been tried in the UK over the years (e.g. Holyrood, EU elections), almost as though someone was conducting an experiment to see which form would give them the result they wanted. Anyway, let's suppose we had a form of PR and the HoC number of seats was roughly proportional to the parties' popular vote. At first one would assume that Labour and Tories would still be the biggest parties, and LibDems presumably in the role of kingmakers as they would have a significant number of seats. Greens would have a few, SNP would suffer and there would be a few representatives of very minor parties. I can see two possible scenarios evolving: 1) Lab and Con continue to dominate, and one or the other cobbling together coalitions which would be a bit different each time. 2) As politicians are used to having a single party in power with very occasional coalitions or confidence and supply arrangements is it possible that the left of the Tories and right of Labour would join to make a new dominant central party or even join the LibDems? Tory and Labour would continue but no longer be dominant. The new party would be a sort of descendant of Chuka Umunna's multi-titled breakaway group during the post-referendum chaos. I'd be interested in people's views. I am a strong supporter of PR, because I believe it to be right rather than for party political advantage. Were it to be implemented it seems likely that the Lib Dems, Greens, SNP, PC and Northern Irish parties would continue to exist in more or less their current form. The Conservatives would likely split into a right-wing UKIP style party and a more moderate remnant Conservative Party on social issues, but both retaining free-market economics (there might be some tension over that in the UKIP part). Labour could easily splinter into three or four parts - but lets assume it mirrors the Conservatives and just loses its left wing into a TUSC style party. Now the bad news for all on the left is looking at European examples the two likeliest governments are either (a) a 'grand coalition' of Labour and Conservative and potentially the Lib Dems, on a centrist platform or (b) a coalition of the Conservatives and the 'UKIP' type party on a right wing agenda. The chance of getting Labour, Greens, the TUSC type party, PC and SNP plus maybe the Lib Dems to agree on anything long enough to form a government seems pretty slim to be honest. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 19, 2023 10:42:23 GMT
"the most dire economic inheritance of any incoming government" Rachel Reeves The Labour government of 1945 inherited a dire economy. Still managed not to be Tories Also got a loan from the US and Canada worth £250bn in today's money. That isn't going to happen again. |
|
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: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 19, 2023 10:42:36 GMT
This is very much how I'm thinking at the moment. My seat is a Tory/Labour battleground but it's been Tory since the dawn of time and, although Labour could very well win it on current polling, if they do prevail it's inconceivable that they won't have secured a very healthy majority. Yes, I'd prefer a Labour MP, and it's always nice to oust a sitting Tory, but in terms of the bigger picture it's difficult to see what the incentive is in voting for a party whose policy platform doesn't appeal when who governs the country ultimately isn't going to hinge on how my constituency votes. I think this is something that's often overlooked in the frequent discussions around how LOC folk might vote. To cast people as either sensible pragmatists or foolish and selfish idealists is, I think, to overlook the fact that people might have many different motivations for voting as they do and that they might make different calculations based on where they live, the marginality of their seat and all sorts of other factors. Also, if I'm honest, I've begun to resent being forced to vote in accordance with what FPTP demands. Doing so only really feels like a tacit endorsement of a voting system that I fundamentally don't agree with and which disenfranchises much of the country. I know that's the game, but if I'm always bemoaning the game then I wonder if it's perhaps time to stop playing. I can assure both of you, because I know lots of them, that committed Tory voters waste very little time agonising over this sort of thing. They just go out and vote Tory whether the candidate is from the left, right or middle of that party and regardless of what policies the party is advocating at the time. That's why they win so often. Well obviously “committed” Tory voters are likely to vote Tory, just as committed Labour voters likely vote Labour. Thus the battle is over the less committed. Over the Tories who might vote New Labour, or UKIP, or LD say. Or who may just decide to stay at home. |
|
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: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 19, 2023 10:45:33 GMT
"the most dire economic inheritance of any incoming government" Rachel Reeves The Labour government of 1945 inherited a dire economy. Still managed not to be Tories Also got a loan from the US and Canada worth £250bn in today's money. That isn't going to happen again. We didn’t have control over our own currency though and couldn’t do things like control interest rates how we would like, magic up large amounts of money via the BoE like we did in the banking crisis etc., so we were more dependent on externals. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jul 19, 2023 10:46:13 GMT
"the most dire economic inheritance of any incoming government" Rachel Reeves The Labour government of 1945 inherited a dire economy. Still managed not to be Tories Also got a loan from the US and Canada worth £250bn in today's money. That isn't going to happen again. That was in mid- 1946 - and the terms of the agreement laid the grounds for the Convertibility Crisis a year later. |
|
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: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 19, 2023 10:46:53 GMT
Also got a loan from the US and Canada worth £250bn in today's money. That isn't going to happen again. That was in mid- 1946 - and the terms of the agreement laid the grounds for the Convertibility Crisis a year later. Indeed! We were forced to cede control of the currency. It’s quite something to see Blairites making Tory-style pro-austerity arguments. When I first came to the board during the austerity era, Blairites used to slag off the household economics of austerity. Brown didn’t believe in household economics, thank f*ck. (Even Tories didn’t believe in it during Covid) |
|
|
|
Post by moby on Jul 19, 2023 11:07:45 GMT
That would be seen as typical socialist campaign group factionalism, they can't see the wood because of the trees. Really isn't it about time we rose above this internal tribal stuff. But it would be no different to what Starmer and the Blairites have been doing. No what Starmer and the 'Blairites' have been doing is making us competent and electable again in the eyes of the public. |
|
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: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 19, 2023 11:09:14 GMT
But it would be no different to what Starmer and the Blairites have been doing. No what Starmer and the 'Blairites' have been doing is making us competent and electable again in the eyes of the public. Tories did that. Look at the polling. Just as they gave Labour a big boost for Blair. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 19, 2023 11:09:28 GMT
Also got a loan from the US and Canada worth £250bn in today's money. That isn't going to happen again. We didn’t have control over our own currency though and couldn’t do things like control interest rates how we would like, magic up large amounts of money via the BoE like we did in the banking crisis etc., so we were more dependent on externals. Do you believe that in the current state of the economy the BoE can turn on the magic money tree of QE without stoking rampant inflation, driving up interest rates and crashing the pound? Because if you do you will be in a tiny minority. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2023 11:10:05 GMT
I personally know a former Labour PPC for the area where Starmer grew up. Starmer was then too young to vote though his parents almost certainly voted for this candidate. He is pondering whether to intervene at some point - to the effect that he is pleased not to have ever had Starmer's vote. Basically he says he would rather not have had the support of such a devious compulsive liar. Golly!!!!!!!!!! |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,392
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Jul 19, 2023 11:13:22 GMT
Labour are held to a much higher bar than tories when it comes to spending commitments For example the tories has recently agreed to a pay deal for large parts of the public sector Their funding of it doesn't add up. Bearing in this mind this will be an ongoing commitment, to say it will be partly funded by a one year underspend is disingenuous at best They also say it will be part funded by increasing visa charges. Again I thought their objective was to reduce immigration, so how will that work going forward But even with those two funding possibilities for this year alone that will not provide enough money to meet the pay rises They make the point there will be no cuts in services, so where's the money coming from and why don't they get the same scrutiny Labour does? I think Starmer must be on this site, he has gone on Sunak’s unfunded spending promises at PMQs |
|
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: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 19, 2023 11:16:43 GMT
We didn’t have control over our own currency though and couldn’t do things like control interest rates how we would like, magic up large amounts of money via the BoE like we did in the banking crisis etc., so we were more dependent on externals. Do you believe that in the current state of the economy the BoE can turn on the magic money tree of QE without stoking rampant inflation, driving up interest rates and crashing the pound? Because if you do you will be in a tiny minority. Yes of course. it depends how you do it and it’s been explained many times. Printing heaps of money following the banking crisis did not result in a great deal of general inflation, despite dire warnings from household economists. It only stoked inflation where supply was constrained, e.g. housing. (They could have done more to avoid that - increase supply or direct the money elsewhere - but they wanted to let house price inflation happen electorally). The cause of recent inflation is not too much money sloshing about, it is external shocks raising the price of energy and food. Curtailing the money supply will not fix this. Furthermore, the money supply is already falling and we risk recession. If you are worried about inflation, the key is to invest in things that will reduce inflation. Like cheaper energy. Cheaper housing etc. (And it’s not necessarily a minority view, unless a majority were against energy subsidies etc.) |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jul 19, 2023 11:19:33 GMT
We didn’t have control over our own currency though and couldn’t do things like control interest rates how we would like, magic up large amounts of money via the BoE like we did in the banking crisis etc., so we were more dependent on externals. Do you believe that in the current state of the economy the BoE can turn on the magic money tree of QE without stoking rampant inflation, driving up interest rates and crashing the pound? Because if you do you will be in a tiny minority. The Monetary transmission system is far from clear. We do know ,however, that the reliance on Quantitative Easing on a massive scale did not produce the surge in inflation across the economy predicted by Monetarist economists - other than in the housing and equity markets.Higher inflation came later via the combined effects of Covid, the Ukrainian war and Brexit. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jul 19, 2023 11:21:47 GMT
Labour are held to a much higher bar than tories when it comes to spending commitments For example the tories has recently agreed to a pay deal for large parts of the public sector Their funding of it doesn't add up. Bearing in this mind this will be an ongoing commitment, to say it will be partly funded by a one year underspend is disingenuous at best They also say it will be part funded by increasing visa charges. Again I thought their objective was to reduce immigration, so how will that work going forward But even with those two funding possibilities for this year alone that will not provide enough money to meet the pay rises They make the point there will be no cuts in services, so where's the money coming from and why don't they get the same scrutiny Labour does? I think Starmer must be on this site, he has gone on Sunak’s unfunded spending promises at PMQs He really is seeking to out Tory the Tories. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jul 19, 2023 11:22:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jul 19, 2023 11:25:03 GMT
I personally know a former Labour PPC for the area where Starmer grew up. Starmer was then too young to vote though his parents almost certainly voted for this candidate. He is pondering whether to intervene at some point - to the effect that he is pleased not to have ever had Starmer's vote. Basically he says he would rather not have had the support of such a devious compulsive liar. Golly!!!!!!!!!! Gosh! |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 19, 2023 11:25:39 GMT
Do you believe that in the current state of the economy the BoE can turn on the magic money tree of QE without stoking rampant inflation, driving up interest rates and crashing the pound? Because if you do you will be in a tiny minority. Yes of course. it depends how you do it and it’s been explained many times. Printing heaps of money following the banking crisis did not result in a great deal of general inflation, despite dire warnings from household economists. It only stoked inflation where supply was constrained, e.g. housing. (They could have done more to avoid that - increase supply or direct the money elsewhere, but they wanted to let house price inflation happen electorally). The cause of recent inflation is not too much money sloshing about, it is external shocks raising the price of energy and food. Curtailing the money supply will not fix this. Furthermore, the money supply is already falling and we risk recession. If you are worried about inflation, the key is to invest in things that will reduce inflation. Like cheaper energy. Cheaper housing etc. Exactly - the supply of cheap food and fuel is constrained, hence the current inflation; your idea will simply make that worse. Remember how Truss' decision to make huge policy shifts funded by borrowing went? She was out of office in 40 days. |
|
