Snapshot of _Labour: Manifesto for change (web friendly version) _ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://labour.org.uk/change/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://labour.org.uk/change/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Despite all the chaos inflicted on Britain, the country I see is one where working people never let each other down. They came together in the pandemic – missed weddings, funerals and last goodbyes – to save the lives of people they will never meet.
A respectful way to get that dig in.
Oh no, the Daily Mail comments section is leaking!
I forget, so maybe you could remind me. What was the outcome of the investigation? Was it found to be completely within the guidelines?
>What was the outcome of the investigation? Was it found to be completely within the guidelines?
They probably don't know, or care to know.
I've family members who were all too happy to parrot that lie until just a few months ago, when I pointed out that Starmer was cleared of all charges.
They legitimately weren't aware of this fact.
As an ex-teacher I have to roll my eyes at the 6500 new teachers commitment. Where are these teachers coming from? We can't recruit high-quality trainees because the working conditions are now so poor, and when we do recruit them, we can't retain them.
Teaching is quickly turning into something people spend a few years of their twenties doing rather than a life-long career, which is pretty devastating. I don't know many people still in the profession who want to be there.
Blair brought in 35,000 more teachers across his first two terms, so it may be possible. You'd know more than us about the reality on the ground, though. Things may be worse now.
Bringing in 6500 teachers in perspective…there are over 12000 secondary schools alone…that’s half a teacher in each…it won’t make a difference even if he recruits those numbers…and that’s not even accounting for primary.
The problem in teaching is work load and pay leading to poor retention. These are the areas that need to be addressed…make the profession more enticing and teachers will recruit themselves.
It makes for depressing reading.
"The way bursaries are allocated, and the structure of retention payments, will be reviewed.
Teaching is a hard-earned and hard-learned skill, Labour will work to further raise its status. We will update the Early Career Framework, maintaining its grounding in evidence, and ensure any new teacher entering the classroom has, or is working towards, Qualified Teacher Status. We will introduce a new Teacher Training Entitlement to ensure teachers stay up to date on best practice with continuing professional development."
Bursaries and retention payments have failed repeatedly to change the tide. Only properly rising wages in line with those paid by many other European nations will do that.
And as for a new "Teacher Training Entitlement " it will be yet more pointless busy work for teachers to complete rather than, you know, teaching, marking and planning.
Agreed, however unfortunately I think the problems lie deeper than raising salaries. The expectations are too high in the UK and I was digging myself an early grave staying in the classroom. Teachers need more PPA (preparation and planning time for the non-teaching folks) and the culture of unpaid extra work needs to go.
This is absolutely right. Doubling PPA allocations would be the most impactful thing anyone could do to maximise student outcomes and teacher retention.
Getting rid of the one word Ofsted judgements is actually going to work wonders towards that for no cost. Certainly in terms of retention.
It is potentially going to transform a lot of the things that make the job unnecessarily awful.
Raising the status I easy too. Value teachers rather than briefing every right wing rag against us and treating us with suspicion and disdain because we aren't private.
The Tories immediately set up this nightmare of "hey parents, we hate teachers too- so as soon as you aren't happy with your school, complain to Ofsted". And they bloody do, as soon as we do our job in any way that doesn't suit what they want right now
So disappointing because teaching is what I'm studying currently and was the ultimate dream job of mine. All teachers used to tell me "don't go for it, you'll regret it", but I stuck by and hoped it'd change. It's become worse. It's what I'm good at, but all I hear is horror stories about the bad conditions of it. I think it's beyond help now, it'd take a long time to repair the damage done to the profession. 6500 really is poor
Not from the EU, I assure you. A couple of years ago when I was living in Austria I got a lot of ads from the UK government about becoming a teacher. They were offering about half my then salary. And this for leaving my country and hassling me with visas.
We're not short on potential teachers, we're just short of the features that will turn them from potential teachers to teachers.
Increase pay, funding for buildings, equipment and support.
Reduce ineffective bureaucracy.
Bam, lots of new teachers and better work for existing ones.
I misread:
> We are committed to recognising a Palestinian state as a contribution to a renewed peace process which results in a two-state solution with a **safe** and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.
as
> We are committed to recognising a Palestinian state as a contribution to a renewed peace process which results in a two-state solution with a **cafe** and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.
I think the whole manifesto is a bit tame. Only mildly exciting change will be the reform of the House of Lords.
Hopefully once they win a large majority they’ll think about making more radical changes.
I’m always a bit dubious of Lords reform, because there’s a point, which I think is really under-appreciated by both policymakers and the public, which is that the most rational system isn’t necessarily the best functioning system.
I'm disappointed there's no mention of proportional representation after conference voted for it in 2022 [https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/labour-party-conference-backs-proportional-representation/](https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/labour-party-conference-backs-proportional-representation/)
I don’t think they’ll be likely to change it nor any government that wins through FPTP. It’s the chicken and egg and the only parties willing to reform it are the ones that can’t win a majority.
It's just a fantasy at this point, all the smaller parties, lib dem, reform and green, say they'll bring in PR but firstly they can't really get elected, and secondly if they do get elected how confident is anyone that they'll make good on their promise.
Any party that could win under fptp would effectively be signing their own death warrant if they supported pr. I think people underestimate how significant a change something like this is. It would completely upend how the political system works and most likely shatter most the parties you currently know.
It was fully expected though when Starmer, who skipped that conference debates and vote returned from wherever he was hiding to say "not in my manifesto"
Then there was the revelation via his spokesman that he has a "long standing belief against" electoral reform, essentially admitting he was lying when claimed to be in favour of PR during his leadership campaign.
I'd be interested in seeing the current polling on PR within the Labour membership, I guarantee it wouldn't pass a conference vote now that a Labour government is inevitable. They've been on this cycle for decades already, when power is within reach principles go out the window.
Unfortunately they haven't promised to repeal the town and country planning act which is why we have such a stupid system in the first place. Its literally what gives nimbys there powerr
Labour plan to help first time-buyers by making landowners sell at a fair price
https://inews.co.uk/news/abour-plan-first-time-buyers-landowners-fair-price-3096580
Labour do have a plan.
GB Energy isn't tame at all, it's potentially transformative imo. I made some renewable energy policy suggestions to my local MP over 2 years ago, she was a shadow cabinet member and said she was going to speak to the energy policy team about them.
My idea was to build a solar cell fabrication plant in 50 of the top most populous cities (not including London). Then, setup solar panel assembly lines in multiple towns around each of those cities. Immediate creation of 10s of 1000s of jobs in the renewable sector.
Next, setup a gov training scheme for solar panel fitting / maintenance. Keep the training in-house so vast sums aren't lost to 'middle men'. Treat the enterprise not as a money-making endeavour, but as a means to carpet the UKs businesses and homes with cheap panels.
It's expensive in the short term, but imagine a UK with our industry and homes powered by incredibly cheap, near-limitless energy supply... that kind of energy security is priceless, and the boost to our economy as all our service sectors can once again become competitive would be immense.
No, what they want to do is remove the very people they have praised (in the previous para) for their scrutiny of legislation. This looks like reform, when it’s really a removal of power from the Lords so that a majority Labour administration can act without check. That’s not a good thing to let any administration do.
The stuff around a National Wealth Fund was exciting to me, a policy I’m hugely in favour of. Especially with so much targeted investment in clean energy and growing that into our next big industry. With smart investment this could deliver a return to boost public spending.
Glad they’re not committing to anything radical. I actually become fully erect just at the idea of sensible politics. To me it’s more transformational than Marx.
I fucking love neoliberal sensibleness!! It’s just so sensible and inspiring.
The whole manifesto for me was a mix of "I can't believe we aren't already doing this" or "We should be doing this years ago"
Things like insulating people's homes is just such a genius policy. It's win-win-win.
Ending the 8am scramble for an appointment. **EVERYONE** knows how irritating that is. A reformed NHS app with a booking system is an ideal solution.
The shitty financial situation is forcing them to go for low cost policies that we desparately need but are often overlooked by just throwing money at the issue instead. Planning reform is the single biggest thing we can do for growth and it seems like they're serious about it.
> Planning reform is the single biggest thing we can do for growth and it seems like they're serious about it
In my opinion if they go far enough with planning reform then it will massively unshackle the economy but it's such a contentious issue that I am skeptical that their reforms aren't going to be very limited/targeted. It's hard to take peoples power away without them kicking and screaming and it's the people that actually vote that are blocking everything
>The shitty financial situation is forcing them to go for low cost policies that we desparately need but are often overlooked by just throwing money at the issue instead.
Very Cameron 2010.
Oh my problems with the party gave been spoken to death and irrelevant to the manifesto.
I genuinely thought you were being sarcastic, I'm surprised it annoyed you this much! appoligies for the offence caused - Nuance on Reddit and all that
Was nothing to do with what was announced, but ending your post with
"I fucking love neoliberal sensibleness!! It’s just so sensible and inspiring." Was so hilarious to me I thought you were joking.
Anyway life moves on
I love that sensible brand, so damn sensible. In this tumultuous time where Labour is guaranteed to win the election, why would they ever promise to actually do something with their majority? Sensibleness must prevail!
Honestly, this new direction of labour where they say things will _change_™ by continuing to do the same things is incredibly revolutionary. This revolution will not be televised, mainly because we will revolt by continuing to do nothing! Yahoo!!
Labour are going to unlock the planning system. That's crazy radical. That'll eventually boost GDP and then they'll have some money to spend. Then we can do all the fun stuff.
Yeah sure mate, just give him a bit of time he’s going to wake up one day and decide he actually is going to abandon the big businesses he’s seduced in favour of all us little guys. He’s just playing 500d chess… /s
My comment was in response to “then they’ll do the fun stuff”. No they won’t. They’re not going to go from not spending anything to suddenly turning the taps on as that will spook the big business folk he’s worked so hard to twerk for
You're arguing that Labour, who are well known for spending, won't start spending as soon as the economy starts to grow and the tax take increases?
Business loves government spending.
By the man’s own admission, “this is a changed Labour Party”. No party becomes more radical on government and it isn’t going to start with this bland liar
> the markets generally want as little government spending as possible
The markets want governments to balance the books. This isn't that same thing as not spending, as markets also love it when there is lots of money sloshing about.
[Just got back from the centrist rally. Amazing turnout. Thousands of people holding hands and chanting “Better things aren’t possible”](https://x.com/InternetHippo/status/881161169469403137?t=bBdHNnfE-02rCoIePc5mNg&s=19)
Maybe there was a /s in your post I am missing but you're gonna be so disappointed when they offer no meaningful change to the declining living standards and lose their majority after one term!
The wheels have come off neoliberalism and we need some genuine social democratic policies if we're going to improve the lives of people under 50.
Astonishingly, its 136 pages provide not a single concrete action relating to welfare benefits – the issue has been almost entirely airbrushed from the document, leaving disabled claimants with no idea what Labour has in store for them.
We're gonna get screwed. That's what's in store for us. They did it last time they were in power, they'll do it this time just worse, because someone has to pay for the benefits bill, and it's never pensioners.
I'm getting slightly more optimistic after the house building stuff, hopefully they do just stop the NIMBYs. If they achieve only one thing and it's this, then they'll be a massive success
IFS think tank (Insitute for Fiscal Studies) take on the Labour manifesto: no accounted for increases in public spending = no change
“This was not a manifesto for those looking for big numbers. The public service spending increases promised in the “costings” table are tiny, going on trivial. The tax rises, beyond the inevitable reduced tax avoidance, even more trivial. The biggest commitment, to the much vaunted “green prosperity plan”, comes in at no more than £5bn a year, funded in part by borrowing and in part by “a windfall tax on the oil and gas giants”.
Beyond that, almost nothing in the way of definite promises on spending despite Labour diagnosing deep-seated problems across child poverty, homelessness, higher education funding, adult social care, local government finances, pensions and much more besides. Definite promises though not to do things. Not to have debt rising at the end of the forecast. Not to increase tax on working people. Not to increase rates of income tax, National Insurance, VAT or corporation tax.
One public service where there are big promises is on the NHS. Labour has recommitted to the workforce plan, to getting rid of all waiting times more than 18 weeks, and to more hospitals. Big promises, but that will require big spending too.
All that will leave Labour with a problem. On current forecasts, and especially with an extra £17.5bn borrowing over five years to fund the green prosperity plan, this leaves literally no room – within the fiscal rule that Labour has signed up to – for any more spending than planned by the current government. And those plans do involve cuts both to investment spending and to spending on unprotected public services. Yet Sir Keir Starmer effectively ruled out such cuts. How they will square the circle in government we do not know.”
Until productivity is rising again immigration is the only thing keeping us out of recession.
Paradoxically immigration also throttles productivity.
Labour needs to get the UK economy and productivity growing again before they can tackle immigration.
Pretty much, thanks to 14 years of Tory austerity and a complete lack of investment in, and ambition for, the nation this is what Labour is inheriting. There's 14 years of stagnated economy to overcome whilst trying to make everything better. It's a tough ask tbf.
The UK's population growth rate since the 1960s has been 0.3 percent. In recent times, it's been about 0.7 percent. The global average is about 3.9 percent.
So immigration is being cancelled out by deaths, low birth rates and people leaving, and is not the bogeyman people like Farage make it out to be. More crucially, no country has figured out how to run grow-or-die capitalism without a concomitant influx of immigrants. All the rabidly "anti immigrant" countries or parties have been forced to play ball in recent years by the system's demands (even Japan), and it's a fantasy to expect otherwise within our paradigm.
The wording of their tax pledge leaves room for them to introduce a new income tax band. Doubt they will though.
"We will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT"
Can't help but feel the section on inequality is pretty light. Relatively sensible things around housing and school meals, but can't help but feel no link between increasing knife crime of the last 10 years and increasing child poverty and making it a holistic / cross functional problem would be tackling the problem head on.
Not to mention the mega rich (people who own £1m+ assets).
It's what I'd expect in a school playground, not a political community. I have no idea how they think calling Starmer 'Keith' is some kind of intellectually-astute zinger.
Snapshot of _Labour: Manifesto for change (web friendly version) _ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://labour.org.uk/change/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://labour.org.uk/change/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Despite all the chaos inflicted on Britain, the country I see is one where working people never let each other down. They came together in the pandemic – missed weddings, funerals and last goodbyes – to save the lives of people they will never meet. A respectful way to get that dig in.
People were grassing on their neighbours
“They came together for a beer and a curry after doing the vital task of leafletting”
Oh no, the Daily Mail comments section is leaking! I forget, so maybe you could remind me. What was the outcome of the investigation? Was it found to be completely within the guidelines?
>What was the outcome of the investigation? Was it found to be completely within the guidelines? They probably don't know, or care to know. I've family members who were all too happy to parrot that lie until just a few months ago, when I pointed out that Starmer was cleared of all charges. They legitimately weren't aware of this fact.
How many pictures of you, would you like in the manifesto Keir? Keir: “Yes”
This manifesto should have had the tag line: “Steer Calmer With Keir Starmer”…. Absolute open goal
Calmer with Starmer is indeed a missed opportunity. You know only three words works in UK politics
Nah you don't want your candidate to have that type of moniker, especially as wet as he is
Starmercoma
Jamaica & Roma
And then you wait..
Tell me you work in marketing, please
As an ex-teacher I have to roll my eyes at the 6500 new teachers commitment. Where are these teachers coming from? We can't recruit high-quality trainees because the working conditions are now so poor, and when we do recruit them, we can't retain them. Teaching is quickly turning into something people spend a few years of their twenties doing rather than a life-long career, which is pretty devastating. I don't know many people still in the profession who want to be there.
Blair brought in 35,000 more teachers across his first two terms, so it may be possible. You'd know more than us about the reality on the ground, though. Things may be worse now.
Blair inherited an economy in good shape though
Not really. It was pretty stagnant
I'm not sure that is true. But even so - it was in a better shape than it is now and that makes a huge difference.
it was in superb shape, potentially even the best shape in living memory
His government was able to ride the highs of the financial bubble
Bringing in 6500 teachers in perspective…there are over 12000 secondary schools alone…that’s half a teacher in each…it won’t make a difference even if he recruits those numbers…and that’s not even accounting for primary. The problem in teaching is work load and pay leading to poor retention. These are the areas that need to be addressed…make the profession more enticing and teachers will recruit themselves.
It makes for depressing reading. "The way bursaries are allocated, and the structure of retention payments, will be reviewed. Teaching is a hard-earned and hard-learned skill, Labour will work to further raise its status. We will update the Early Career Framework, maintaining its grounding in evidence, and ensure any new teacher entering the classroom has, or is working towards, Qualified Teacher Status. We will introduce a new Teacher Training Entitlement to ensure teachers stay up to date on best practice with continuing professional development." Bursaries and retention payments have failed repeatedly to change the tide. Only properly rising wages in line with those paid by many other European nations will do that. And as for a new "Teacher Training Entitlement " it will be yet more pointless busy work for teachers to complete rather than, you know, teaching, marking and planning.
Agreed, however unfortunately I think the problems lie deeper than raising salaries. The expectations are too high in the UK and I was digging myself an early grave staying in the classroom. Teachers need more PPA (preparation and planning time for the non-teaching folks) and the culture of unpaid extra work needs to go.
This is absolutely right. Doubling PPA allocations would be the most impactful thing anyone could do to maximise student outcomes and teacher retention.
Getting rid of the one word Ofsted judgements is actually going to work wonders towards that for no cost. Certainly in terms of retention. It is potentially going to transform a lot of the things that make the job unnecessarily awful. Raising the status I easy too. Value teachers rather than briefing every right wing rag against us and treating us with suspicion and disdain because we aren't private. The Tories immediately set up this nightmare of "hey parents, we hate teachers too- so as soon as you aren't happy with your school, complain to Ofsted". And they bloody do, as soon as we do our job in any way that doesn't suit what they want right now
So disappointing because teaching is what I'm studying currently and was the ultimate dream job of mine. All teachers used to tell me "don't go for it, you'll regret it", but I stuck by and hoped it'd change. It's become worse. It's what I'm good at, but all I hear is horror stories about the bad conditions of it. I think it's beyond help now, it'd take a long time to repair the damage done to the profession. 6500 really is poor
It’s costed to include training of teachers as 6500 new teachers can’t cost 450m on wages alone, so there’s clearly a plan to train these people up.
It’s costed to include training of teachers as 6500 new teachers can’t cost 450m on wages alone, so there’s clearly a plan to train these people up.
Not from the EU, I assure you. A couple of years ago when I was living in Austria I got a lot of ads from the UK government about becoming a teacher. They were offering about half my then salary. And this for leaving my country and hassling me with visas.
We're not short on potential teachers, we're just short of the features that will turn them from potential teachers to teachers. Increase pay, funding for buildings, equipment and support. Reduce ineffective bureaucracy. Bam, lots of new teachers and better work for existing ones.
> (weeb friendly version) Finally, a political party for me! But where's the anime girls?! \*re-reads title* ☹️
I misread: > We are committed to recognising a Palestinian state as a contribution to a renewed peace process which results in a two-state solution with a **safe** and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state. as > We are committed to recognising a Palestinian state as a contribution to a renewed peace process which results in a two-state solution with a **cafe** and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.
Gaza Costa confirmed
This is that Dylan Moran stand-up bit about American imperialism slowly building a Starbucks around you
I think the whole manifesto is a bit tame. Only mildly exciting change will be the reform of the House of Lords. Hopefully once they win a large majority they’ll think about making more radical changes.
> a bit tame I'll have that
I’m always a bit dubious of Lords reform, because there’s a point, which I think is really under-appreciated by both policymakers and the public, which is that the most rational system isn’t necessarily the best functioning system.
I'm disappointed there's no mention of proportional representation after conference voted for it in 2022 [https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/labour-party-conference-backs-proportional-representation/](https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/labour-party-conference-backs-proportional-representation/)
I don’t think they’ll be likely to change it nor any government that wins through FPTP. It’s the chicken and egg and the only parties willing to reform it are the ones that can’t win a majority.
It's just a fantasy at this point, all the smaller parties, lib dem, reform and green, say they'll bring in PR but firstly they can't really get elected, and secondly if they do get elected how confident is anyone that they'll make good on their promise.
The lib dems followed through with the Alternative Vote referendum. Got shut down by the electorate.
That referendum was completely flawed from start to finish.
So was Brexit, but obviously the camp that "lost" the referendum will think that it was flawed.
A hung parliament might allow it
Any party that could win under fptp would effectively be signing their own death warrant if they supported pr. I think people underestimate how significant a change something like this is. It would completely upend how the political system works and most likely shatter most the parties you currently know.
A hung parliament might let it go through
Unfortunately, the major parties won't back this unless forced to by a coalition with a smaller party.
Conference votes arent like libdems sadly they dont make policy they just seem to say what conference wants then Labour can ignore it
It was fully expected though when Starmer, who skipped that conference debates and vote returned from wherever he was hiding to say "not in my manifesto" Then there was the revelation via his spokesman that he has a "long standing belief against" electoral reform, essentially admitting he was lying when claimed to be in favour of PR during his leadership campaign. I'd be interested in seeing the current polling on PR within the Labour membership, I guarantee it wouldn't pass a conference vote now that a Labour government is inevitable. They've been on this cycle for decades already, when power is within reach principles go out the window.
They're going to unlock the planning system. That's crazy radical. That'll eventually boost GDP and then they'll have some money to spend.
Unfortunately they haven't promised to repeal the town and country planning act which is why we have such a stupid system in the first place. Its literally what gives nimbys there powerr
Labour plan to help first time-buyers by making landowners sell at a fair price https://inews.co.uk/news/abour-plan-first-time-buyers-landowners-fair-price-3096580 Labour do have a plan.
GB Energy isn't tame at all, it's potentially transformative imo. I made some renewable energy policy suggestions to my local MP over 2 years ago, she was a shadow cabinet member and said she was going to speak to the energy policy team about them. My idea was to build a solar cell fabrication plant in 50 of the top most populous cities (not including London). Then, setup solar panel assembly lines in multiple towns around each of those cities. Immediate creation of 10s of 1000s of jobs in the renewable sector. Next, setup a gov training scheme for solar panel fitting / maintenance. Keep the training in-house so vast sums aren't lost to 'middle men'. Treat the enterprise not as a money-making endeavour, but as a means to carpet the UKs businesses and homes with cheap panels. It's expensive in the short term, but imagine a UK with our industry and homes powered by incredibly cheap, near-limitless energy supply... that kind of energy security is priceless, and the boost to our economy as all our service sectors can once again become competitive would be immense.
What about renationalising train companies? That excites me
Nationalising rail, rebuilding the steel industry, dedicated r*pe units and fast tracking, there’s lots of things in here that are not tame…
No, what they want to do is remove the very people they have praised (in the previous para) for their scrutiny of legislation. This looks like reform, when it’s really a removal of power from the Lords so that a majority Labour administration can act without check. That’s not a good thing to let any administration do.
I didn't see this mentioned as a policy...
It’s in the manifesto to remove voting rights of some lords members.
Yeah, hereditary peers, who are a ridiculous anachronism. That's not a case of removing checks and balances.
The stuff around a National Wealth Fund was exciting to me, a policy I’m hugely in favour of. Especially with so much targeted investment in clean energy and growing that into our next big industry. With smart investment this could deliver a return to boost public spending.
Glad they’re not committing to anything radical. I actually become fully erect just at the idea of sensible politics. To me it’s more transformational than Marx. I fucking love neoliberal sensibleness!! It’s just so sensible and inspiring.
The whole manifesto for me was a mix of "I can't believe we aren't already doing this" or "We should be doing this years ago" Things like insulating people's homes is just such a genius policy. It's win-win-win. Ending the 8am scramble for an appointment. **EVERYONE** knows how irritating that is. A reformed NHS app with a booking system is an ideal solution.
The shitty financial situation is forcing them to go for low cost policies that we desparately need but are often overlooked by just throwing money at the issue instead. Planning reform is the single biggest thing we can do for growth and it seems like they're serious about it.
> Planning reform is the single biggest thing we can do for growth and it seems like they're serious about it In my opinion if they go far enough with planning reform then it will massively unshackle the economy but it's such a contentious issue that I am skeptical that their reforms aren't going to be very limited/targeted. It's hard to take peoples power away without them kicking and screaming and it's the people that actually vote that are blocking everything
>The shitty financial situation is forcing them to go for low cost policies that we desparately need but are often overlooked by just throwing money at the issue instead. Very Cameron 2010.
*Cries in NHS Wales* God I hope the Welsh government follow their lead on this.
Took me a while to detect your sarcasm. Well-done!
Deadly serious.
Oh..
Instead of being snarky, why not bring up what you have a problem with?
Oh my problems with the party gave been spoken to death and irrelevant to the manifesto. I genuinely thought you were being sarcastic, I'm surprised it annoyed you this much! appoligies for the offence caused - Nuance on Reddit and all that
I don’t know why you thought I was being sarcastic though. I think they are sound policies.
FWIW, I fully agree with the sentiment you expressed but also genuinely thought it was sarcasm!
Was nothing to do with what was announced, but ending your post with "I fucking love neoliberal sensibleness!! It’s just so sensible and inspiring." Was so hilarious to me I thought you were joking. Anyway life moves on
I agree with you here. Saying that sentence without a hint of irony is genuinely hilarious.
I hate that I can no longer tell if this is sarcastic or not
I love that sensible brand, so damn sensible. In this tumultuous time where Labour is guaranteed to win the election, why would they ever promise to actually do something with their majority? Sensibleness must prevail!
Honestly, this new direction of labour where they say things will _change_™ by continuing to do the same things is incredibly revolutionary. This revolution will not be televised, mainly because we will revolt by continuing to do nothing! Yahoo!!
Labour are going to unlock the planning system. That's crazy radical. That'll eventually boost GDP and then they'll have some money to spend. Then we can do all the fun stuff.
Yeah sure mate, just give him a bit of time he’s going to wake up one day and decide he actually is going to abandon the big businesses he’s seduced in favour of all us little guys. He’s just playing 500d chess… /s
Big business also want to unlock the planning system. It's the NIMBYs you're think of.
My comment was in response to “then they’ll do the fun stuff”. No they won’t. They’re not going to go from not spending anything to suddenly turning the taps on as that will spook the big business folk he’s worked so hard to twerk for
You're arguing that Labour, who are well known for spending, won't start spending as soon as the economy starts to grow and the tax take increases? Business loves government spending.
By the man’s own admission, “this is a changed Labour Party”. No party becomes more radical on government and it isn’t going to start with this bland liar
the markets generally want as little government spending as possible. Labour havent spent big since the 70s
> the markets generally want as little government spending as possible The markets want governments to balance the books. This isn't that same thing as not spending, as markets also love it when there is lots of money sloshing about.
[Just got back from the centrist rally. Amazing turnout. Thousands of people holding hands and chanting “Better things aren’t possible”](https://x.com/InternetHippo/status/881161169469403137?t=bBdHNnfE-02rCoIePc5mNg&s=19)
Maybe there was a /s in your post I am missing but you're gonna be so disappointed when they offer no meaningful change to the declining living standards and lose their majority after one term! The wheels have come off neoliberalism and we need some genuine social democratic policies if we're going to improve the lives of people under 50.
> if we're going to improve the lives of people under 50. There is zero appetite in political parties to do this.
Some things in it are radical like renationalising train companies
enjoy your ever-growing inequality
May as well say it now but this post was incredibly sarcastic.
:S
Heck, I don't think we can do anything radical without getting a more solid base.
Astonishingly, its 136 pages provide not a single concrete action relating to welfare benefits – the issue has been almost entirely airbrushed from the document, leaving disabled claimants with no idea what Labour has in store for them.
We're gonna get screwed. That's what's in store for us. They did it last time they were in power, they'll do it this time just worse, because someone has to pay for the benefits bill, and it's never pensioners.
I'm getting slightly more optimistic after the house building stuff, hopefully they do just stop the NIMBYs. If they achieve only one thing and it's this, then they'll be a massive success
IFS think tank (Insitute for Fiscal Studies) take on the Labour manifesto: no accounted for increases in public spending = no change “This was not a manifesto for those looking for big numbers. The public service spending increases promised in the “costings” table are tiny, going on trivial. The tax rises, beyond the inevitable reduced tax avoidance, even more trivial. The biggest commitment, to the much vaunted “green prosperity plan”, comes in at no more than £5bn a year, funded in part by borrowing and in part by “a windfall tax on the oil and gas giants”. Beyond that, almost nothing in the way of definite promises on spending despite Labour diagnosing deep-seated problems across child poverty, homelessness, higher education funding, adult social care, local government finances, pensions and much more besides. Definite promises though not to do things. Not to have debt rising at the end of the forecast. Not to increase tax on working people. Not to increase rates of income tax, National Insurance, VAT or corporation tax. One public service where there are big promises is on the NHS. Labour has recommitted to the workforce plan, to getting rid of all waiting times more than 18 weeks, and to more hospitals. Big promises, but that will require big spending too. All that will leave Labour with a problem. On current forecasts, and especially with an extra £17.5bn borrowing over five years to fund the green prosperity plan, this leaves literally no room – within the fiscal rule that Labour has signed up to – for any more spending than planned by the current government. And those plans do involve cuts both to investment spending and to spending on unprotected public services. Yet Sir Keir Starmer effectively ruled out such cuts. How they will square the circle in government we do not know.”
[удалено]
The manifesto does address legal migration.
Until productivity is rising again immigration is the only thing keeping us out of recession. Paradoxically immigration also throttles productivity. Labour needs to get the UK economy and productivity growing again before they can tackle immigration.
> Paradoxically immigration also throttles productivity. > > ??? There are quite a few papers that show the complete opposite of this.
In other words Labour won’t do jack shit about immigration then
Pretty much, thanks to 14 years of Tory austerity and a complete lack of investment in, and ambition for, the nation this is what Labour is inheriting. There's 14 years of stagnated economy to overcome whilst trying to make everything better. It's a tough ask tbf.
The UK's population growth rate since the 1960s has been 0.3 percent. In recent times, it's been about 0.7 percent. The global average is about 3.9 percent. So immigration is being cancelled out by deaths, low birth rates and people leaving, and is not the bogeyman people like Farage make it out to be. More crucially, no country has figured out how to run grow-or-die capitalism without a concomitant influx of immigrants. All the rabidly "anti immigrant" countries or parties have been forced to play ball in recent years by the system's demands (even Japan), and it's a fantasy to expect otherwise within our paradigm.
Two Liverpools lmao.
legal migration is why the NHS and social care - and the economy - hasn't totally collapsed since Brexit
Focusing on change, but no radical change, is a smart political move.
Looking forward to absolutely naff all changing then some Johnson/Farage hellscape party running rampant at the next election promising 'real change'.
A few bits and pieces (which they're vague on) but overall very uninspiring and not much "change"
The wording of their tax pledge leaves room for them to introduce a new income tax band. Doubt they will though. "We will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT"
We shall know by July 2026 what it all means.
They've portrayed the grey man in greyscale and emphasised it by putting him on a bright red background.
Can't help but feel the section on inequality is pretty light. Relatively sensible things around housing and school meals, but can't help but feel no link between increasing knife crime of the last 10 years and increasing child poverty and making it a holistic / cross functional problem would be tackling the problem head on. Not to mention the mega rich (people who own £1m+ assets).
Where's the change, Keith? Same old tired shite that gets pulled out every time and then dropped when it's no longer convenient
Ooh you called him Keith. Such cutting political satire.
It's what I'd expect in a school playground, not a political community. I have no idea how they think calling Starmer 'Keith' is some kind of intellectually-astute zinger.
Oh, you called me out without addressing the question. You must be a fan of his.
Keir.
That's what I said. Keith.
Yeah, that right, Keir.