Politics

[Renton 21579]

1 hour ago, Rayvin said:

I think I would ask all the pragmatists on here something along the lines of... do you think Starmer would have lost if he'd come out with Jeremy Corbyn's manifesto minus the personal baggage and antisemitism stuff?

 

I don't think he would have. I don't for a second think he would have. I think Labour hugely underplayed their hand this election - maybe that makes them more sustainable over time but honestly I think we're going to start struggling to see daylight between them and Cameron's Tories, longer term. And if that is the case, what is even the point.

 

It would have been fucking disastrous if he had won a GE on that manifesto, would have made the Truss crash look like a blip. 

 

What do you think about things like the employment rights bill and renters rights bill? The waters special measures Bill? Planning reforms to build more houses? Would a Cameron government have enacted any of that? Would they fuck. 

[Renton 21579]

6 minutes ago, spongebob toonpants said:

Bit of revisionism going on here. Corbyns manifesto seems radical mainly because everybody is singing to the Tories tune. They might have lost the election bit it seems everyone has bought their arguments

Corbyn manifesto would be centre left in any number of European countries

 

Stuff like free WiFi was canny batshit like, even at the time. But as Gemmill says, we are a long way past those days and it would have been fiscal suicide in 2024.

[Alex 35062]

Where Corbyn’s manifesto was positioned on the political spectrum didn’t necessarily make it deliverable then and it’s without a doubt less deliverable now. I don’t know why people get too hung on manifestos anyway. No one reads them or sticks to them 

Edited October 14 by Alex

[NJS 4377]

4 hours ago, Alex said:

Where Corbyn’s manifesto was positioned on the political spectrum didn’t necessarily make it deliverable then and it’s without a doubt less deliverable now. I don’t know why people get too hung on manifestos anyway. No one reads them or sticks to them 

I agree but they represent broad intent. Corbyn's was all about real change, Starmer's is about status quo despite the big claim of change. 

[Dazzler 9716]

5 hours ago, NJS said:

I agree but they represent broad intent. Corbyn's was all about real change, Starmer's is about status quo despite the big claim of change. 

I’d rather have someone say we can’t do xyz because we’re skint.

 

A Corbyn type manifesto would have had to have been massively walked back on and they would be slammed as liars - this would have been true of Corbyn too, no way he’s delivering those promises when the economy is bollocksed.
 

The big claim of change was down to competence, something in short supply in government in the last decade. So far so good in that respect IMO. 

[Renton 21579]

8 hours ago, NJS said:

I agree but they represent broad intent. Corbyn's was all about real change, Starmer's is about status quo despite the big claim of change. 

 

Status quo because you'll dismiss every incremental benefit he introduces, which cumulatively will be real significant changes. Just like you did with New Labour. You'll also not consider the counterfactual, 10 more years of tory power. 

[Gemmill 44805]

I love how there's now a "national insurance controversy" because it looks like they're going to raise Employer's NI. The press and the Tories trying to suggest this is breaking a manifesto promise, even though it was abundantly clear that it was Employee's NI that was being talked about during the campaign. 

 

The way the press will just run with the Tory line as if there are questions to be answered, instead of just going "Aye that's bollocks, we can ignore it" just again speaks to how they've forgotten how to actually do they're job, because they're so addicted to drama. 

[Ayatollah Hermione 13860]

Glad we’re giving out Ozempic to the obese and jobless though. We’ll not bother doing anything about making genuine healthy food affordable or limiting ultra processed shite, just take this and get into work 

[Alex 35062]

52 minutes ago, Ayatollah Hermione said:

Glad we’re giving out Ozempic to the obese and jobless though. We’ll not bother doing anything about making genuine healthy food affordable or limiting ultra processed shite, just take this and get into work 

The best ways to tackle obesity are 1) provide proper lessons in how to cook in schools, with enough time and resources. 2) spend a lot more money of sports facilities* and on outdoor recreational resources to make them more widely accessible to different social groups. I’ve thought that was canny obvious for decades. 
 

*especially in schools but for the wider community 

[Renton 21579]

3 hours ago, Alex said:

The best ways to tackle obesity are 1) provide proper lessons in how to cook in schools, with enough time and resources. 2) spend a lot more money of sports facilities* and on outdoor recreational resources to make them more widely accessible to different social groups. I’ve thought that was canny obvious for decades. 
 

*especially in schools but for the wider community 

 

I'm in the process of losing weight. I nudging obese levels on the BMI scale which for me was the time to think seriously about losing weight. I've lost 14 kg since April (about 2 stone) and am on target to get down to 82 Kg by next April which will put me at the top end of the normal range. I intend to stay there. Fuck me its hard though. The only way you can do it is through calorie control, burn more than you use and be obsessive about it. I walk on average 15,000 steps a day now but exercise is only a small part of it, 20% to be exact. The rest is all about changing your diet. I've massively cut down on carbs and eat a lot of salad and fruits. It's fucking expensive though and takes will power. 

 

I just don't know if these are governmental responsibilities. How are they going to subsidise fresh food and make it accessible? Who is going to pay for leisure centres? Ozempic (Semaglutide) is very effective but it's long-term safety and efficacy is not known, I can easily imagine rebound effects after stopping treatment being disastrous. Long story short, I think you're right but it feels we need some kind of joined up thinking here to promote healthiness more as a concept. Again, New Labour were more into preventative treatments but Cameron scrapped these initiatives.  

[NJS 4377]

It's a big state vs little state question. We've had 45 years minus a N arguable brief respite of a push toward individual responsibility being the basis of society and it's got us here. 

 

Trying to deal with inner city crime when cuts to youth services are to blame, shoring up infrastructure devestated by more cuts, the rivers and seas full of shit because of the drive for dividends over service and also dealing with obesity caused by poor education, bastard food firms exploiting the poor and cuts to leisure services as you mention. 

 

We've now been beaten down to accept that the 5th biggest economy on the planet can't afford anything as the wealth has been migrated from poor to rich deliberately and any suggestion of reversing that is communist heresy. 

 

This is why I think your incremental change is doomed - only major surgery will make any difference and I'm resigned to the fact it won't happen. 

[Renton 21579]

3 hours ago, NJS said:

It's a big state vs little state question. We've had 45 years minus a N arguable brief respite of a push toward individual responsibility being the basis of society and it's got us here. 

 

Trying to deal with inner city crime when cuts to youth services are to blame, shoring up infrastructure devestated by more cuts, the rivers and seas full of shit because of the drive for dividends over service and also dealing with obesity caused by poor education, bastard food firms exploiting the poor and cuts to leisure services as you mention. 

 

We've now been beaten down to accept that the 5th biggest economy on the planet can't afford anything as the wealth has been migrated from poor to rich deliberately and any suggestion of reversing that is communist heresy. 

 

This is why I think your incremental change is doomed - only major surgery will make any difference and I'm resigned to the fact it won't happen. 

 

On the one hand you have suggested Corbyn's manifesto was centre left and incremental, and on the other you're suggesting you want revolution? 

 

We can both agree it isn't going to happen at least, but what would this look like? How could it be enacted without spooking the market, given we are at 100% GDP/debt ratio already? Can you put some more meat on the bones cos honestly, of course I want everything you've said but I just don't know how it can be realistically achieved. 

 

Stuck record, aye, but it genuinely felt like it worked well enough for me under New Labour, I'd be over the moon to get back to those days personally. And that happened incrementally. 

[Rayvin 5217]

None of you answered my question. I didn't ask you how deliverable or appropriate that manifesto was, or if it would have been a good thing. I asked you if Labour could have won on it. The point of the question being to outline that Labour were being far, far too careful to appease the right compared to what they could actually have done. So I'm asking again, looking back at it now, did they really need to be as careful as they were?

 

It's a weird argument this tbh. We have one group who are "unhelpful, naive and belligerent" arguing with another group who act like they've been traumatised into giving up their values, and will justify all sorts of shit as long as their team won. 

[ewerk 30559]

Given that the country can’t afford its current day to day running I don’t see how Labour could have afforded that manifesto.

[Rayvin 5217]

 

1 minute ago, ewerk said:

Given that the country can’t afford its current day to day running I don’t see how Labour could have afforded that manifesto.

 

Fair enough but it's still not my point. My point is, did Labour have to be so timid or do you think in hindsight that they could have been far bolder?

[Dazzler 9716]

2 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

None of you answered my question. I didn't ask you how deliverable or appropriate that manifesto was, or if it would have been a good thing. I asked you if Labour could have won on it. The point of the question being to outline that Labour were being far, far too careful to appease the right compared to what they could actually have done. So I'm asking again, looking back at it now, did they really need to be as careful as they were?

 

It's a weird argument this tbh. We have one group who are "unhelpful, naive and belligerent" arguing with another group who act like they've been traumatised into giving up their values, and will justify all sorts of shit as long as their team won. 

In short, no I don't think they could have.

 

It would have been pushed as a "Corbyn Manifesto" and absolutely shat on by all quarters of the press - Starmer would have gotten the Corbyn treatment as a result.

 

The safety first approach was absolutely vital to winning the election because a) they had to get the fence sitting centrists over to their side and b) they had no idea of the state of the economy heading into power (because the tories had hidden so much of their shit).

 

To expand on point A - A more radical socialist manifesto would have been no different to a facist reform one in the eyes of the people sat in the middle.

 

We'd probably have a lib dem government now had Labour pushed a more left leaning manifesto.

[ewerk 30559]

4 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

 

Fair enough but it's still not my point. My point is, did Labour have to be so timid or do you think in hindsight that they could have been far bolder?

I think it’s irrelevant. They have such a huge majority now that they can be as bold as they want. So far they have been entirely underwhelming. They are restricted by government borrowing rules but hopefully Reeves’ tinkering with the rules will give them wiggle room to do the capital investment the country desperately needs.

[Rayvin 5217]

I'd have taken an LD government over this one tbh. Fair enough anyway, though I don't agree at all.

[Rayvin 5217]

1 minute ago, ewerk said:

I think it’s irrelevant. They have such a huge majority now that they can be as bold as they want. So far they have been entirely underwhelming. They are restricted by government borrowing rules but hopefully Reeves’ tinkering with the rules will give them wiggle room to do the capital investment the country desperately needs.

 

Well, they're sticking to what they said they were going to do. Nothing that helps the rot in any significant way. Hard to fault them for sticking to what they said.

[Renton 21579]

12 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

None of you answered my question. I didn't ask you how deliverable or appropriate that manifesto was, or if it would have been a good thing. I asked you if Labour could have won on it. The point of the question being to outline that Labour were being far, far too careful to appease the right compared to what they could actually have done. So I'm asking again, looking back at it now, did they really need to be as careful as they were?

 

It's a weird argument this tbh. We have one group who are "unhelpful, naive and belligerent" arguing with another group who act like they've been traumatised into giving up their values, and will justify all sorts of shit as long as their team won. 

 

I don't know if they could have won on a different manifesto. I doubt it with Starmer, as he is not particularly charismatic but probably his main point of strength is the perception of him being cautious, professsional, competent and business like. Having an out there manifesto would detract from that, but maybe the tories were so unpopular who knows?

 

But to throw this back, the question has to be is it a good thing to win on a manifesto purely because the opposition is hated? And I don't know why you don't want to talk about how deliverable it would be, because this is of vital importance for the country and Labour's re-election chances in 5 years. 

 

It's been 3 months, Maybe just give it a bit more time? 

[Rayvin 5217]

Just now, Renton said:

 

I don't know if they could have won on a different manifesto. I doubt it with Starmer, as he is not particularly charismatic but probably his main point of strength is the perception of him being cautious, professsional, competent and business like. Having an out there manifesto would detract from that, but maybe the tories were so unpopular who knows?

 

But to throw this back, the question has to be is it a good thing to win on a manifesto purely because the opposition is hated? And I don't know why you don't want to talk about how deliverable it would be, because this is of vital importance for the country and Labour's re-election chances in 5 years. 

 

It's been 3 months, Maybe just give it a bit more time? 

 

I don't want to talk about how deliverable it would be because I've seen left wingers come out against immigration and in support of austerity the past few pages. I'm not getting into that, it's going to depress the hell out of me. If the left is saying that stuff, we really have lost completely.

 

I'm not putting this all on Labour but look around you. Do you know anyone who is happy in life at the moment? I don't. No matter who I talk to, life seems completely shit. People cant get jobs, cant afford homes, cant look after their families properly, lonely, on more medication than ever, the list goes on. Rearranging deckchairs is not going to save us from the crippling negativity of this time. We need some actual vision of a better future, and I think my primary complaint with Starmer is that he has fucking nothing on that. The little he does have I just flat out don't believe after all his broken promises.

[Meenzer 15518]

24 minutes ago, Dazzler said:

We'd probably have a lib dem government now had Labour pushed a more left leaning manifesto.

 

You big tease.

[Renton 21579]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

 

I don't want to talk about how deliverable it would be because I've seen left wingers come out against immigration and in support of austerity the past few pages. I'm not getting into that, it's going to depress the hell out of me. If the left is saying that stuff, we really have lost completely.

 

I'm not putting this all on Labour but look around you. Do you know anyone who is happy in life at the moment? I don't. No matter who I talk to, life seems completely shit. People cant get jobs, cant afford homes, cant look after their families properly, lonely, on more medication than ever, the list goes on. Rearranging deckchairs is not going to save us from the crippling negativity of this time. We need some actual vision of a better future, and I think my primary complaint with Starmer is that he has fucking nothing on that. The little he does have I just flat out don't believe after all his broken promises.

 

Fair enough. I agree with respect to the state of the country and people's perception of it, and I know who I blame for that.

Years ago the great visionary CT declared all that was left for the country now, and western democracies more generally, was managed decline. Maybe he was right. When I look at the demographic profiles of our countries, the pension timebomb, the invention of AI, the cost of personalised medicines, the wealth gap, etc, it does feel a bit hopeless. But I also know that unexpected things will happen to change things, and governments have little contro over these. 

But at the same time, you call for some form of revolution in our political thinking, but you don't ever state what this would be, let alone give the details? We exist within the constraints of a captalist paradigm. How do you break free from that in a global economy? You don't, you have to play by the rules and do the best you can within them. Or you become Venezuela or Argentina. That is what Labour are tryig to do imo.

And. 3 months man. 

[Alex 35062]

25 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

I'd have taken an LD government over this one tbh. Fair enough anyway, though I don't agree at all.

A bit of conjecture of course by me. But I think Labour are a bit out of their depth, due to inexperience and the multiple issues faced and economic constraints stopping them applying many quick fixes. But I think the Lib Dems would be even more hampered on that score. I do think Labour are coming in for some unfair criticism. But they certainly don’t help themselves in terms of putting out there the reasons for doing stuff. It is going to take time to tackle things because of the complete lack of joined up thinking and strategy from the previous government. I do have sone insight into the complexity of it all at work. It’s fucking incredible how one change can trigger a lot of unwanted consequences. I’m not trying to be patronising btw, I share a lot of your concerns. And Labour are in bother if they can’t take like you people along with them on the journey. It’s no good just appeasing middle England. Various demographics are ripe for being swept up by Reform, the Greens, Lib Dems, independents. Even if the Tories continue to destroy themselves 

Edited October 16 by Alex

[NJS 4377]

The smart people around Starmer thought they could win by appealing to moderate tories and binning anyone vaguely left wing but only 6% of 2019 tory voters voted Labour. 

 

As Alex suggests I think any perceived failure in government will make people a lot more open to vote elsewhere - especially if they only voted anti-tory or if they are left wingers who were "too loyal" and will see what they've actually got.