Congratulations on your first post. Very interesting. I think Labour and Starmer have been at their best when speaking with a degree of optimism and confidence. When they’ve proposed bold policies like when he went all out on housing a while back.
I'm sick to the back teeth of all this fucking Kremlinology. If Labour want us to believe they have any progressive policies then I expect them to announce them out load, officially. Not read them from the entrails they've chucked around. So far their stated policies are not significantly different to the fucking Tories. So it's a hard pass from me.
I've had my mind turned a bit by the MMT book, things like "wealth tax on the top one per cent of households could bring in up to £130 billion" and the 2019 Labour manifesto being fully-costed make me think about it. I'm in favour of wealth taxes in order to reduce inequality (one of the biggest problems in the country and world, imo) but if the government wants £130 billion, it can just invent £130 billion. It's not going to run out of pounds. Obviously with serious thought to inflation, especially now.
Maybe my concept what is a high number has been irreparably destroyed by track and trace, government invented £38 billion and it completely disappeared.
I can see anything in this piece that screams “most radical shift in decades” but rather an admittance that Labour are not bold enough. The manifesto of 2017-2019 was indeed popular, fully costed and received backing from economists, and it’s needed now more than ever. To also compare Corbyn supporters as “zany” and those not Corbyn fans as smart, shows your pettiness.
There’s nothing that shows there will be a change once Starmer is in government, but just confirms the criticisms of current Labour governance.
Anyway, still a good read of the inner workings of the drab that is to come.
But faced with the worst PM ever (little did we know) he still lost. And who knows how much of that would have been implemented with what has happened since.
I shall begin by admitting that I'm an old, case hardened bigot who was born between two world wars. Therefore, when I read in the first sentence of a potentially important piece an 'f' word I'm not inclined to read further.
Yes I know I'm an old fart (that's not the 'f' word I refer to above!') but language does matter. As can be seen here I'm commenting on style not substance and this has prevented me from adding anything more relevant to the discussion.
OK I submit, there's one thing I would add having just watched the BBC Sunday morning LK show, Keir Starmer has been criticised over and over for not giving details of his plans for the future. But what general would give his adversaries details of his plan of attack before the event?
Starmer's main focus quite rightly should be on becoming PM otherwise he will not be in a position to do anything.
Any thoughts on a piece looking at constitutional policy - even cheaper than labour market reform but potentially big impacts?. Btw collective bargaining in the social care sector may have a big fiscal impact - huge sector - and will hopefully have to pay staff a lot more, but this will impact massively on local authority budgets (they commission most social care).
Do you think there's any chance Starmer dumps Reeves in the run-up to or immediately after the election and then uses that as a way to relax some of the economic limitations she has put in place?
No I think that's very, very unlikely. The best chance of movement from the fiscal rule is some flexibility in the definition of 'investment', which would take day-to-day spending ie on jobseeker allowance and treat it as investment. Technical fiddling that mostly nerds will notice. Kind of thing Brown might have done as chancellor.
Congratulations on your first post. Very interesting. I think Labour and Starmer have been at their best when speaking with a degree of optimism and confidence. When they’ve proposed bold policies like when he went all out on housing a while back.
I'm sick to the back teeth of all this fucking Kremlinology. If Labour want us to believe they have any progressive policies then I expect them to announce them out load, officially. Not read them from the entrails they've chucked around. So far their stated policies are not significantly different to the fucking Tories. So it's a hard pass from me.
I've had my mind turned a bit by the MMT book, things like "wealth tax on the top one per cent of households could bring in up to £130 billion" and the 2019 Labour manifesto being fully-costed make me think about it. I'm in favour of wealth taxes in order to reduce inequality (one of the biggest problems in the country and world, imo) but if the government wants £130 billion, it can just invent £130 billion. It's not going to run out of pounds. Obviously with serious thought to inflation, especially now.
Maybe my concept what is a high number has been irreparably destroyed by track and trace, government invented £38 billion and it completely disappeared.
I can see anything in this piece that screams “most radical shift in decades” but rather an admittance that Labour are not bold enough. The manifesto of 2017-2019 was indeed popular, fully costed and received backing from economists, and it’s needed now more than ever. To also compare Corbyn supporters as “zany” and those not Corbyn fans as smart, shows your pettiness.
There’s nothing that shows there will be a change once Starmer is in government, but just confirms the criticisms of current Labour governance.
Anyway, still a good read of the inner workings of the drab that is to come.
But faced with the worst PM ever (little did we know) he still lost. And who knows how much of that would have been implemented with what has happened since.
And the old git was a Brexiter.
I shall begin by admitting that I'm an old, case hardened bigot who was born between two world wars. Therefore, when I read in the first sentence of a potentially important piece an 'f' word I'm not inclined to read further.
Yes I know I'm an old fart (that's not the 'f' word I refer to above!') but language does matter. As can be seen here I'm commenting on style not substance and this has prevented me from adding anything more relevant to the discussion.
OK I submit, there's one thing I would add having just watched the BBC Sunday morning LK show, Keir Starmer has been criticised over and over for not giving details of his plans for the future. But what general would give his adversaries details of his plan of attack before the event?
Starmer's main focus quite rightly should be on becoming PM otherwise he will not be in a position to do anything.
If we think back to 1996-7, the Blairites were equally timid. A spell in opposition can do that to you.
But then they came to power and did radical things.
Any thoughts on a piece looking at constitutional policy - even cheaper than labour market reform but potentially big impacts?. Btw collective bargaining in the social care sector may have a big fiscal impact - huge sector - and will hopefully have to pay staff a lot more, but this will impact massively on local authority budgets (they commission most social care).
Do you think there's any chance Starmer dumps Reeves in the run-up to or immediately after the election and then uses that as a way to relax some of the economic limitations she has put in place?
No I think that's very, very unlikely. The best chance of movement from the fiscal rule is some flexibility in the definition of 'investment', which would take day-to-day spending ie on jobseeker allowance and treat it as investment. Technical fiddling that mostly nerds will notice. Kind of thing Brown might have done as chancellor.