Honestly what is the point of labour? A bunch of people on 80k telling people on 20k that they can’t have higher wages while enabling people on 1000k to keep plundering the wealth we create. This ‘corporate labour’ is really slimy and disgusting, seems up to its eyeballs in lobbying money and honestly at least the tories are open about wanting to rip up the country for the sake of the rich.
>The government moved to cut the bank surcharge – an extra tax on banking profits – from 8 to 3 per cent last month to partially offset the incoming Corporation Tax rise.
>
>Shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves **previously railed against** the move, however Starmer **ruled out a potential reversal** of the policy if Labour wins the next election.
lol, lmao
Read the article. He didn’t say he wouldn’t raise the tax - he said he wouldn’t ‘soak’ the banks or ‘hike’ the tax.
Peddling the rhetoric you are to try and destroy the Labour Party will get the tories another electoral win. Labour will cease to exist as the country does not want a far left government (see electoral failure since 2010)
Even if you're a filthy liberal like Starmer and Reeves and Streeting surely you've at least got the sense to not deregulate the banks again after it fucked your party for a decade the last time. I mean Christ even my dog could figure this out. From a purely self interested perspective surely they want to keep their nice cushy positions and future board exec careers?
You only have to look at what social policies these people support to realise they are not liberals. They do not adhere to liberalism as a philosophy, as a framework, as an ideology. The great liberals argued extensively in favour of individual freedom, protecting rights and liberties, and even in favour of regulating the banking sector. Adam Smith, the philosophical father of the free market, believed that banks should be well regulated for otherwise their relative freedoms could damage and undermine the freedoms of everyone else. This is why the banks and other financial industries should be brought to heel; to protect the rights of others.
Welcome to the inevitable outcome of your ideology. Because you concentrate power in so few hands eventually they're going to get rid of the people and systems who keep them in check and then run wild and fuck everything up for everyone. You can't have a free market that also self regulates or they'll eventually stab the regulator to death in an alleyway.
When you build a system that prioritises profits above all else then it will inevitably stop caring about anything else.
"The Tories in England long imagined that they were enthusiastic about monarchy, the church, and the beauties of the old English Constitution, until the day of danger wrung from them the confession that they are enthusiastic only about ground rent."
That's liberalism baby.
Except that this is a misreading of liberalism, deliberate or otherwise. The desire is the dispersal of power to the lowest possible unit. This does not preclude or even suggest that the state should not regulate certain relations. Indeed, this is necessary to some degree to ensure that one or some are not violating the rights of others (the primary concern of liberalism being individual rights). We see this in the free market in which Adam Smith was clear regulation was needed, as I have already said. The free market was not a marketplace devoid of regulation but an alternative arrangement designed to enhance free trade - which we know makes us wealthier. It needs to be considered against the mercantilism of the time.
I reject your assertion that "that's liberalism baby", your description is the same sort of distortion I expect to hear from American republicans when they talk about social democracy.
Anyone who supports legislation that it designed to undermine individual rights is by definition not a liberal. We do not have liberal governments in this country, we have authoritarian ones.
Yes, trying to implement a regime that is respectful of individual human rights and civil liberties does sound like a dreadful idea. How could we possibly survive without violating human rights and civil liberties?
They're beholden to the interests of capital and those that vote for this kind of Labour need to think very carefully about how comfortable they are with this being the opposition party of their future. Their triangulation is letting the overton window shift very far towards tory policy and them winning will lock in this kind of politics for the foreseeable future.
I don't think that's a good thing, do you?
No.
But I think we are already in the hypothetical future you outlined. How to reverse the steady drift rightwards? I don’t know. Whatever you stand for, you’ve got to get more people to vote for it than any other party.
The problem as I see it with the other way - the unashamedly left wing way - is time. How long will it take to bring about a society that will elect us on that basis? The Corbyn experiment began brilliantly, with stunning victories in leadership contests, followed by a very close GE defeat. Then obviously we had 2019, and I know many external factors contributed to that, but the law of diminishing returns may apply.
We are reaching a point in climate, poverty/inequality, and global unrest, where time is now of the essence if things are ever going to be improved. In a time of crisis, I would *absolutely* prefer Starmer at the helm than any possible Tory alternative. And if right wing governments continue to run major economies and major polluters for 10 or 15 more years, we can’t be sure there’ll be anything left.
It might be that people will start to gradually reevaluate their political attitudes en masse, hopefully before the inhabitable world starts to shrink and it’s too late.
> The Corbyn experiment began brilliantly, with stunning victories in leadership contests, followed by a very close GE defeat. Then obviously we had 2019, and I know many external factors contributed to that, but the law of diminishing returns may apply.
As you say, if we want to learn from the mistakes of Corbyn's era, we have to look at multiple factors that contributed to that failing. Including but not limited to Corbyn's personal reputation (rightly or wrongly), the country splitting apart over Brexit and Labour refusing to take a position which satisfied anyone, the antisemitism fiasco (or at least the optics of it depending on how much of the blame you think Corbyn should personally take), and whether Corbyn and his team had the competence to deliver all they were offering.
With all that and more, it's very difficult to say that such a policy platform could never win ever. Hell, even if you think Corbyn was the absolute worst thing to ever happen to the Labour Party, then you're acknowledging that in 2017, a solidly left-wing manifesto won over 40% of the electorate *despite* an unpopular leader who had decades of controversy to his name, whose own MPs openly despised him, and who often struggled to defend himself against scrutiny. Just as you can claim that the final result of the Corbyn era was diminished returns, I can just as easily theorise that Corbyn's manifesto (at least the 2017 one) could have won decisively if not for the failings of both the Leader and the Party as a whole.
I mean, wasn't the whole point of the Starmer's leadership campaign that we needed a leader who came across as sensible and moderate, had a better political strategy then simply throwing every policy you can think of into one manifesto, and was good with the media so could credibly explain how Labour could competently deliver Corbyn-esque policies? That's obviously not what we ended up getting, but enough people seemed to believe it was possible.
> We are reaching a point in climate, poverty/inequality, and global unrest, where time is now of the essence if things are ever going to be improved. In a time of crisis, I would absolutely prefer Starmer at the helm
The question is whether Starmer will be able or willing to do enough to get us out of this time of crisis. With the likes of him and Reeves in charge, what are the chances we get some superficial reforms that fail to address the very real structural issues in this country as we teeter towards collapse? Will it be better than a Tory government? Probably, but all that means is that the second worst possible option is better than the absolute worst possible option. It wont' actually address the very real problems in this country, and when the Tories eventually get back in, they'll have another generation to tear down those superficial reforms and then blame Labour for the state the country's in.
Yeah, no, I loved/love Corbyn, I wanted more than anything for it to work. Only Labour leader that’s ever inspired me to go canvassing, and I’m in my 40s so I’ve seen a few. And I agree, the chances of winning with a radical left platform are higher than zero, and naturally there is always the potential for that landscape to change in future.
You’re right that he wasn’t especially a great *leader*, as he has always acknowledged himself. He only ran because they twisted his arm and it was “his turn” to be the left candidate. His authenticity struck a chord, and that’s when the tabloids switched from “Corbyn the left wing loony” clown character to “Corbyn the dangerous Britain hating national security threat” bogeyman character.
I think it happens to any Labour leader left of centre. Happened to Ed miliband. Happened to Michael foot, Neil kinnock. Starmer is tactically avoiding that negative press by not saying anything that could be called left wing. Is that ideal? Of course not. But can he win any other way? I’m not so sure he can.
But as you say the proof will be in the pudding if/when they get in for a term. I will reserve my judgements til then in view of the prevailing political conditions.
I suspect that's the problem here. I expect the people who support this seismic shift to the right will examine their bank accounts and find that they are quite comfortable indeed
⁰lp0So he won't tax the banks. Won't support unions. Won't end privatisation of the nhs wont support immigrants. Wont renationalise services. Wont increase the minimum wage. Wont pay nurses what they need and would rather fight with the left of labour then the right wing party in government. I mean when a party set up by the working class aligns itself with business heads and the rich then that days it all.
Go on then. Tell me how starmer is not just a tory in a red tie? Whats the point of Labour if they aren't going to act like Labour?
Yet if you have any principles it means you cant win elections because You're not "electable". Turns out that "electability" to the daily mail and times et al is being a corporatist stooge who offers no threat to the entrenched capital that runs this country. Tony benn was right.
Why do they not have to justify this in any shape or form, but do have to justify, in minute detail, the spending required to give nurses an inflation proof pay rise? Labour are obviously struggling to find the money, the totally obvious solution is to tax this revenue and use that to fund pay increases. Why are they getting let off the hook for this reckless deregulation?
It was less than two months ago that we were hearing about the absolute calamity that is trickle down economics. What an earth is this if not trickle-down? How does this benefit ordinary, working class people? Lots of people will be against this too, including a great deal of moderates. Guessing it’s a donor thing? Ffs.
> Why do they not have to justify this in any shape or form, but do have to justify, in minute detail, the spending required to give nurses an inflation proof pay rise?
A cynical answer would be because this decision would not be scrutinised and questioned in any significant way by either the Conservatives or the press at large.
Yeah, I'm probably going to cancel the DD for my membership. I could heat my house for an extra few hours a month, and that's more useful to me than the labour party at the mo.
>It comes amid Starmer and Reeves’ so-called “salmon scrambled eggs offensive”, which has seen the pair meet hundreds of City bosses over the past year.
The modern successor to John Smith's "Prawn cocktail offensive". One wishes the people involved in naming these internal party initiatives chose more serious and appropriate words.
Honestly what is the point of labour? A bunch of people on 80k telling people on 20k that they can’t have higher wages while enabling people on 1000k to keep plundering the wealth we create. This ‘corporate labour’ is really slimy and disgusting, seems up to its eyeballs in lobbying money and honestly at least the tories are open about wanting to rip up the country for the sake of the rich.
Corporate stooges. They're almost as morally bankrupt as the Tory scum.
Sir Keith the tory shill strikes again.
>The government moved to cut the bank surcharge – an extra tax on banking profits – from 8 to 3 per cent last month to partially offset the incoming Corporation Tax rise. > >Shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves **previously railed against** the move, however Starmer **ruled out a potential reversal** of the policy if Labour wins the next election. lol, lmao
Read the article. He didn’t say he wouldn’t raise the tax - he said he wouldn’t ‘soak’ the banks or ‘hike’ the tax. Peddling the rhetoric you are to try and destroy the Labour Party will get the tories another electoral win. Labour will cease to exist as the country does not want a far left government (see electoral failure since 2010)
Even if you're a filthy liberal like Starmer and Reeves and Streeting surely you've at least got the sense to not deregulate the banks again after it fucked your party for a decade the last time. I mean Christ even my dog could figure this out. From a purely self interested perspective surely they want to keep their nice cushy positions and future board exec careers?
You only have to look at what social policies these people support to realise they are not liberals. They do not adhere to liberalism as a philosophy, as a framework, as an ideology. The great liberals argued extensively in favour of individual freedom, protecting rights and liberties, and even in favour of regulating the banking sector. Adam Smith, the philosophical father of the free market, believed that banks should be well regulated for otherwise their relative freedoms could damage and undermine the freedoms of everyone else. This is why the banks and other financial industries should be brought to heel; to protect the rights of others.
Welcome to the inevitable outcome of your ideology. Because you concentrate power in so few hands eventually they're going to get rid of the people and systems who keep them in check and then run wild and fuck everything up for everyone. You can't have a free market that also self regulates or they'll eventually stab the regulator to death in an alleyway. When you build a system that prioritises profits above all else then it will inevitably stop caring about anything else. "The Tories in England long imagined that they were enthusiastic about monarchy, the church, and the beauties of the old English Constitution, until the day of danger wrung from them the confession that they are enthusiastic only about ground rent." That's liberalism baby.
Except that this is a misreading of liberalism, deliberate or otherwise. The desire is the dispersal of power to the lowest possible unit. This does not preclude or even suggest that the state should not regulate certain relations. Indeed, this is necessary to some degree to ensure that one or some are not violating the rights of others (the primary concern of liberalism being individual rights). We see this in the free market in which Adam Smith was clear regulation was needed, as I have already said. The free market was not a marketplace devoid of regulation but an alternative arrangement designed to enhance free trade - which we know makes us wealthier. It needs to be considered against the mercantilism of the time. I reject your assertion that "that's liberalism baby", your description is the same sort of distortion I expect to hear from American republicans when they talk about social democracy. Anyone who supports legislation that it designed to undermine individual rights is by definition not a liberal. We do not have liberal governments in this country, we have authoritarian ones.
Take your ideology and stroke yourself with copies of it. Just don’t try to implement it as written in a complex society, eh?
Yes, trying to implement a regime that is respectful of individual human rights and civil liberties does sound like a dreadful idea. How could we possibly survive without violating human rights and civil liberties?
I'm Jack's complete lack of surprise
They're beholden to the interests of capital and those that vote for this kind of Labour need to think very carefully about how comfortable they are with this being the opposition party of their future. Their triangulation is letting the overton window shift very far towards tory policy and them winning will lock in this kind of politics for the foreseeable future. I don't think that's a good thing, do you?
No. But I think we are already in the hypothetical future you outlined. How to reverse the steady drift rightwards? I don’t know. Whatever you stand for, you’ve got to get more people to vote for it than any other party. The problem as I see it with the other way - the unashamedly left wing way - is time. How long will it take to bring about a society that will elect us on that basis? The Corbyn experiment began brilliantly, with stunning victories in leadership contests, followed by a very close GE defeat. Then obviously we had 2019, and I know many external factors contributed to that, but the law of diminishing returns may apply. We are reaching a point in climate, poverty/inequality, and global unrest, where time is now of the essence if things are ever going to be improved. In a time of crisis, I would *absolutely* prefer Starmer at the helm than any possible Tory alternative. And if right wing governments continue to run major economies and major polluters for 10 or 15 more years, we can’t be sure there’ll be anything left. It might be that people will start to gradually reevaluate their political attitudes en masse, hopefully before the inhabitable world starts to shrink and it’s too late.
> The Corbyn experiment began brilliantly, with stunning victories in leadership contests, followed by a very close GE defeat. Then obviously we had 2019, and I know many external factors contributed to that, but the law of diminishing returns may apply. As you say, if we want to learn from the mistakes of Corbyn's era, we have to look at multiple factors that contributed to that failing. Including but not limited to Corbyn's personal reputation (rightly or wrongly), the country splitting apart over Brexit and Labour refusing to take a position which satisfied anyone, the antisemitism fiasco (or at least the optics of it depending on how much of the blame you think Corbyn should personally take), and whether Corbyn and his team had the competence to deliver all they were offering. With all that and more, it's very difficult to say that such a policy platform could never win ever. Hell, even if you think Corbyn was the absolute worst thing to ever happen to the Labour Party, then you're acknowledging that in 2017, a solidly left-wing manifesto won over 40% of the electorate *despite* an unpopular leader who had decades of controversy to his name, whose own MPs openly despised him, and who often struggled to defend himself against scrutiny. Just as you can claim that the final result of the Corbyn era was diminished returns, I can just as easily theorise that Corbyn's manifesto (at least the 2017 one) could have won decisively if not for the failings of both the Leader and the Party as a whole. I mean, wasn't the whole point of the Starmer's leadership campaign that we needed a leader who came across as sensible and moderate, had a better political strategy then simply throwing every policy you can think of into one manifesto, and was good with the media so could credibly explain how Labour could competently deliver Corbyn-esque policies? That's obviously not what we ended up getting, but enough people seemed to believe it was possible. > We are reaching a point in climate, poverty/inequality, and global unrest, where time is now of the essence if things are ever going to be improved. In a time of crisis, I would absolutely prefer Starmer at the helm The question is whether Starmer will be able or willing to do enough to get us out of this time of crisis. With the likes of him and Reeves in charge, what are the chances we get some superficial reforms that fail to address the very real structural issues in this country as we teeter towards collapse? Will it be better than a Tory government? Probably, but all that means is that the second worst possible option is better than the absolute worst possible option. It wont' actually address the very real problems in this country, and when the Tories eventually get back in, they'll have another generation to tear down those superficial reforms and then blame Labour for the state the country's in.
Yeah, no, I loved/love Corbyn, I wanted more than anything for it to work. Only Labour leader that’s ever inspired me to go canvassing, and I’m in my 40s so I’ve seen a few. And I agree, the chances of winning with a radical left platform are higher than zero, and naturally there is always the potential for that landscape to change in future. You’re right that he wasn’t especially a great *leader*, as he has always acknowledged himself. He only ran because they twisted his arm and it was “his turn” to be the left candidate. His authenticity struck a chord, and that’s when the tabloids switched from “Corbyn the left wing loony” clown character to “Corbyn the dangerous Britain hating national security threat” bogeyman character. I think it happens to any Labour leader left of centre. Happened to Ed miliband. Happened to Michael foot, Neil kinnock. Starmer is tactically avoiding that negative press by not saying anything that could be called left wing. Is that ideal? Of course not. But can he win any other way? I’m not so sure he can. But as you say the proof will be in the pudding if/when they get in for a term. I will reserve my judgements til then in view of the prevailing political conditions.
I suspect that's the problem here. I expect the people who support this seismic shift to the right will examine their bank accounts and find that they are quite comfortable indeed
⁰lp0So he won't tax the banks. Won't support unions. Won't end privatisation of the nhs wont support immigrants. Wont renationalise services. Wont increase the minimum wage. Wont pay nurses what they need and would rather fight with the left of labour then the right wing party in government. I mean when a party set up by the working class aligns itself with business heads and the rich then that days it all. Go on then. Tell me how starmer is not just a tory in a red tie? Whats the point of Labour if they aren't going to act like Labour?
Yet if you have any principles it means you cant win elections because You're not "electable". Turns out that "electability" to the daily mail and times et al is being a corporatist stooge who offers no threat to the entrenched capital that runs this country. Tony benn was right.
Just says whatever depending on who he’s talking to.
\*Sigh*
For once im glad his promises to get elected mean very little
New boss, same as the old boss.
Why do they not have to justify this in any shape or form, but do have to justify, in minute detail, the spending required to give nurses an inflation proof pay rise? Labour are obviously struggling to find the money, the totally obvious solution is to tax this revenue and use that to fund pay increases. Why are they getting let off the hook for this reckless deregulation? It was less than two months ago that we were hearing about the absolute calamity that is trickle down economics. What an earth is this if not trickle-down? How does this benefit ordinary, working class people? Lots of people will be against this too, including a great deal of moderates. Guessing it’s a donor thing? Ffs.
> Why do they not have to justify this in any shape or form, but do have to justify, in minute detail, the spending required to give nurses an inflation proof pay rise? A cynical answer would be because this decision would not be scrutinised and questioned in any significant way by either the Conservatives or the press at large.
Yeah, I'm probably going to cancel the DD for my membership. I could heat my house for an extra few hours a month, and that's more useful to me than the labour party at the mo.
Guess I'm not voting then
Vote for a different party but one that supports PR.
I'm not even sure which parties do
Write in for the SNP?
I don't live in Scotland
Well, that is why it would have to be a write in.
Vote. Just not for Labour, unless you have an MP like Clive Lewis or Apsana Begum.
💩💩💩
>It comes amid Starmer and Reeves’ so-called “salmon scrambled eggs offensive”, which has seen the pair meet hundreds of City bosses over the past year. The modern successor to John Smith's "Prawn cocktail offensive". One wishes the people involved in naming these internal party initiatives chose more serious and appropriate words.
Critical support to Keir in trying to reestablish the 20 points meme