The Labour Party - Part 2

[El Cid 214]

37 minutes ago, apelike said:

I think it's a given that austerity is here for some time to come, and as already said it not just the UK suffering from it either. As for increased surveillance.... After Labour took us into an unnecessary war they introduce very draconian anti-terrorism laws which were also used for non terrorist offences. They introduce a DNA database with the idea that everybody would be on it and not just criminals, and also tried to introduce a compulsory ID scheme for all.

We should not be blaming Labour for things happening now or in the future. Its quite some time since they were in power!

39 minutes ago, apelike said:

And there lies the problem. Unless he can come up with something the masses will vote for then a Labour government is not on the cards. The days of being part of, or being a member of any political party are numbered. Many voters today are like me, floating voters who are not aligned to any one party and vote how they feel on the day as shown by Brexit and the last GE.

But when you know that its a choice between the two main parties, that is really a choice between the two.

[Organgrinder 1,946]

4 hours ago, Anna B said:

Part of the problem, I believe, is that the news etc has been totally dominated by first Brexit, and now Covid, neither of which are strictly party political issues, but have allowed the Tories, the party in power, to dominate, adopting Labour policies as their own (but of course giving Labour no credit) and leaving Labour between a rock and a hard place.

 

Currently very little interest is being focused on the underpinning issues of Tory Austerity, corruption and the damage being done to everyday life.

 

Just as the Tories had no qualms about running a totally deceitful campaign to pin the 2008 World banking crisis squarely on the Labour party, they will undoubtedly use the Covid crisis as an excuse for the upcoming continuance of their Austerity policy and aim to roll back welfare and the state when it suits them, but increase it when it comes to 'keeping us safe from covid,' with increased surveillance etc.  

Ask yourself why the Tories are the party in power.  My point is to show that if Labour want power, then they must offer some policies which the voters want and they are not doing that.

For instance, how would Labour deal with the debt which Covid has created. There appears no alternative to austerity but if Labour has one, time to speak up and charm the people for a change.

[apelike 10]

54 minutes ago, El Cid said:

We should not be blaming Labour for things happening now or in the future. Its quite some time since they were in power!

I'm not blaming Labour, just pointing out that what has happened in the past has not been restricted just to the conservatives. It's a fact that many Labourites still blame Maggie for what she did with the conservatives in the past and yet if there had been enough will and votes all that could have been easily reversed, yet despite having a Labour government since it never was. 

 

Quote

But when you know that its a choice between the two main parties, that is really a choice between the two.

I agree and that will always be the case until it changes, that's why I was saying it now seems to depend a lot on floating voters.

Edited February 28, 2021 by apelike

[El Cid 214]

1 hour ago, apelike said:

It's a fact that many Labourites still blame Maggie for what she did with the conservatives in the past and yet if there had been enough will and votes all that could have been easily reversed, yet despite having a Labour government since it never was. 

I agree and that will always be the case until it changes, that's why I was saying it now seems to depend a lot on floating voters.

The Labour voters that blame Magie are probably on the left, they could well vote Green, even UVIP adjusted its policies to attract poor Labour voters. So it also depends on the left/right vote and whether its split.

[andyofborg 11]

1 hour ago, Organgrinder said:

Ask yourself why the Tories are the party in power.  My point is to show that if Labour want power, then they must offer some policies which the voters want and they are not doing that.

Now is not the time to be doing that sort of thing. There are years until the next general election. 

It's far too soon to be doing policies. We are in the middle of a pandemic. It's going to be look incredibly self indulgent and disconnected from reality to  be talking policies now. 

1 hour ago, Organgrinder said:

For instance, how would Labour deal with the debt which Covid has created. There appears no alternative to austerity but if Labour has one, time to speak up and charm the people for a change.

The only alternatives to deal with the debt, is spend less or tax more. The solution is going to be a mixture of both.  Now isn't the time to be doing either. The exact balance between the two is going to depend on the exact conditions when the changes are implemented, Again now is not the time to be trying to guess the economic conditions in 3 and a half years.

 

[Anna B 1,401]

1 hour ago, Organgrinder said:

Ask yourself why the Tories are the party in power.  My point is to show that if Labour want power, then they must offer some policies which the voters want and they are not doing that.

For instance, how would Labour deal with the debt which Covid has created. There appears no alternative to austerity but if Labour has one, time to speak up and charm the people for a change.

This is what annoys me so much.! Labour DID offer policies which differed from the Tories and were wanted by the public, but  Boris deliberately steered the conversation away onto Brexit at every opportunity, as he knew any examination of Tory policies would lose them the election. The media colluded by destroying Corbyn's character with smears and ridicule, not his policies which rarely got a mention because the media knew they would chime with the public. At the time I tried asking people who 'couldn't stand Corbyn' why, and they always mentioned a supposed character flaw they'd read in the media, ask them which of his policies they objected to, and they couldn't answer because they didn't know what they were.... That is the power of the media.

 

Now Starmer is back on the same Neoliberal agenda as the Tories, once again we have no real choice, just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic....

[El Cid 214]

16 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Now Starmer is back on the same Neoliberal agenda as the Tories, once again we have no real choice, just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic....

Starmer does not wear clowns shoes though, maybe he is slightly more to the left.

[Organgrinder 1,946]

1 hour ago, andyofborg said:

Now is not the time to be doing that sort of thing. There are years until the next general election. 

It's far too soon to be doing policies. We are in the middle of a pandemic. It's going to be look incredibly self indulgent and disconnected from reality to  be talking policies now. 

The only alternatives to deal with the debt, is spend less or tax more. The solution is going to be a mixture of both.  Now isn't the time to be doing either. The exact balance between the two is going to depend on the exact conditions when the changes are implemented, Again now is not the time to be trying to guess the economic conditions in 3 and a half years.

 

Obviously, the pandemic will take pride of place in the governments thoughts, and rightly so, but we cannot go through the next 3 and a half years, doing nothing at all..

A "now is not the time" policy will make the government look as feeble and short of ideas as the Labour party and we will be bobbing about like a cork on the ocean, at the mercy of whatever happens

A stiff rise in interest rates for instance could multiply our debts to the point where they become unmanageable.

There are 3 alternatives for dealing with debt, spend less, tax more, or earn more and the third will be difficult to achieve which means we need very wise investment to bring future profits.

Another point is that under every government we have had, we have wasted money as though it grows on trees despite every one of those governments promising that they would cut wastage and inefeciency once elected.

If Labour wait 3 years or more before they outline any real policies, It will be too late and the Tories will run away with them again.

[andyofborg 11]

23 minutes ago, Anna B said:

 

 

Now Starmer is back on the same Neoliberal agenda as the Tories, once again we have no real choice, just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic....

I thought the thrust of this bit of the thread was that Labour don't have any policies. So, how can you be sure what agenda they have?

[apelike 10]

51 minutes ago, Anna B said:

This is what annoys me so much.! Labour DID offer policies which differed from the Tories and were wanted by the public,....

No. Its true that Labour under JC did offer policies that differed from the Tories but it is very debatable that the were also ones wanted by the public, or should we say voters? as it is those that make the decision on who will come into power.

 

This is what the BBC called the top 12 from their 2019 manifesto.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50501411

 

Full 2019 manifesto here:

 

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Real-Change-Labour-Manifesto-2019.pdf

 

 

 

 

1. Increase the health budget by 4.3%. I think most would go along with that. But. *

 

2. Hold a second referendum on Brexit. Why? the first one was fine and also democratic.

 

3. Raise minimum wage from £8.21 to £10 again no problem with that.

 

4. Stop state pension age rises. A difficult one as he tries to appease the so called Waspi women. But* Also no mention of ending the triple lock.

 

5. Introduce a National Care Service. Good idea. But. *

 

6. Bring forward a net-zero target. Sounds good. But. *

 

7. Re-Nationalise key industries. Something to appease the Maggie haters. But.*

 

8. Scrap Universal Credit. Something I agree with.

 

9. Abolish private schools charitable status. Why?

 

10. Free bus travel for the under 25's. Why?

 

11. Give EU nationals the right to remain. But I thought they already had that right and all they needed to do was apply?

 

12. Build 100,000 council homes a year. No problem with building more homes but until then I would rather it better to cap rent charges and also high housing costs as that is a drain on benefits and also personal resources.

 

 

*Unfortunately for JC he offered many good sound bites but with little or no explanations on how some of these extremely expensive changes would be funded or what impact they would have on the attempt to reduce austerity. Not forgetting the free broadband thing either.

 

 

Edited February 28, 2021 by apelike

[andyofborg 11]

1 minute ago, Organgrinder said:

Obviously, the pandemic will take pride of place in the governments thoughts, and rightly so, but we cannot go through the next 3 and a half years, doing nothing at all..

A "now is not the time" policy will make the government look as feeble and short of ideas as the Labour party and we will be bobbing about like a cork on the ocean, at the mercy of whatever happens

That's the difference between government and opposition. Governments have to be seen to be doing something,  If things go to plan and things start to open up in June and we don't end up locked down again in August then I'd hope Labour would start to talk about the principles which will drive the policies. 

 

In normal times, the majority of people simply will not pay enough attention to policy detail now for anything to take hold now. Now is an even worse time.  Also,  policy which looks perfect for today might be totally unrealistic in 3 and a half years. The opposition needs policies which address the issues of the day not the ones of from earlier days. 

 

So, now you have policy forums and idea gathering. A couple of years out from the election you start to propogate vague policy ideas and gradually firm them up as the election approaches. 

1 minute ago, Organgrinder said:

A stiff rise in interest rates for instance could multiply our debts to the point where they become unmanageable.

Possibly, but if all else fails the Bank of England can print more money.

1 minute ago, Organgrinder said:

There are 3 alternatives for dealing with debt, spend less, tax more, or earn more and the third will be difficult to achieve which means we need very wise investment to bring future profits.

Except governments can't earn really earn money except via taxation.

 

To raise money outside of taxation, you are looking at nationalisation and that has been contrary to all government's  philosophy for 40 years. Government success in running enterprises has been rather patchy.   

 

1 minute ago, Organgrinder said:

Another point is that under every government we have had, we have wasted money as though it grows on trees despite every one of those governments promising that they would cut wastage and inefeciency once elected.

Every enterprise has waste and inefficiency, you can strive to minimise it but you can't remove it entirely. Much of the waste and inefficiency in government is the result of the way Parliament and government works at a fundamental level. If you really want to reduce waste and inefficiency then you need change the way government works and that's a big job which goes beyond the short term focus of a government and so there is no enthusiasm for it. 

[Anna B 1,401]

4 hours ago, apelike said:

No. Its true that Labour under JC did offer policies that differed from the Tories but it is very debatable that the were also ones wanted by the public, or should we say voters? as it is those that make the decision on who will come into power.

 

This is what the BBC called the top 12 from their 2019 manifesto.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50501411

 

Full 2019 manifesto here:

 

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Real-Change-Labour-Manifesto-2019.pdf

 

 

 

 

1. Increase the health budget by 4.3%. I think most would go along with that. But. *

 

2. Hold a second referendum on Brexit. Why? the first one was fine and also democratic.

 

3. Raise minimum wage from £8.21 to £10 again no problem with that.

 

4. Stop state pension age rises. A difficult one as he tries to appease the so called Waspi women. But* Also no mention of ending the triple lock.

 

5. Introduce a National Care Service. Good idea. But. *

 

6. Bring forward a net-zero target. Sounds good. But. *

 

7. Re-Nationalise key industries. Something to appease the Maggie haters. But.*

 

8. Scrap Universal Credit. Something I agree with.

 

9. Abolish private schools charitable status. Why?

 

10. Free bus travel for the under 25's. Why?

 

11. Give EU nationals the right to remain. But I thought they already had that right and all they needed to do was apply?

 

12. Build 100,000 council homes a year. No problem with building more homes but until then I would rather it better to cap rent charges and also high housing costs as that is a drain on benefits and also personal resources.

 

 

*Unfortunately for JC he offered many good sound bites but with little or no explanations on how some of these extremely expensive changes would be funded or what impact they would have on the attempt to reduce austerity. Not forgetting the free broadband thing either.

 

 

Everything in the Labour party's 2019 election manifesto was carefully funded, they made sure of that after the slurs of them having caused the financial crash etc. The need for free broadband has also been shown to be necessary in the light of the Chinese security debacle (we need to keep control of our own systems) and of the home schooling fiasco where inequality has been highlighted. 

Economists agree that you have to spend your way out of a recession, with investment in infrastructure etc, rather than austerity which has made the problem worse. And Labour would have actually done what it promised with regards to closing tax loopholes for the rich and famous, rather than the empty promises of the Tories.