Keir Starmer's Pledges

100% can't be any worse than this shower

 

Except that those in the money markets may curtail your ability to make certain political choices. (See Truss, Kwarteng.)

 

I suspect the responses you seek will depend on peoples' prior opinion of Starmer, and we all know where we stand! But should 'pledges'/'missions' etc remain set in stone, or should they be adapted for changing circumstances, and for what can realistically be achieved in the light of new facts? Personally, I prefer a pragmatist to an ideologist. I'd say that promises/pledges can only be regarded as crystallized once they are published in a manifesto. That's the offer people are being invited to vote for, not what was said five years ago. As regards 2., for me the 'straight bat' approach has to be the right one, given that the right wing media will scream "unfunded promises!" the minute anything "bold" is announced. Get elected first. So I'd be with the 'Spectemur agendo' lobby on that one!

 

Giving free money to your mates on an industrial scale while ignoring all advice is very different to say planning infrastructure projects with clear defined goals.

Truss and Kwarteng made ideological rather than political choices. There’s a massive difference. I

 

Although, they were just cutting tax and spending loads of money without any plan to reduce either. Probably the coke talking...

 

Agreed, but the market men may still shout "unfunded!", in which case the outcome may be the same.

 

Everything is unfunded until you fund it. Though Labour do not feel that they have to fund their promises on defence or the Ukraine…

you could say fund privatisation of energy by confirming it is at zero cost. At the end of the process you would have an asset equal to your investment so cost to public purse is negligible. That wouldn’t spook the markets as it’s mainstream economic theory that the vast majority of economists would sign up to. Of course you need to present it properly but if you choose not to do it then that’s a political choice not an economic one.

 

That should confuse 'em!

 

It’s a simple message to get across isn’t it? You just use the house buying analogy. A mortgage = debt. The property you buy = return. Political parties over complicate economics without usually understanding it.

 

I think the struggle with state schools is there over crowded we build more and more houses the population increases and so have class sizes and people are not wanting to teach anymore. You have a class of 30 kids and 1 teacher if one wants to disrupt that lesson the other kids suffer.
Having said that I think if a child/pupil wants to knuckle down and work hard he can achieve that in a state school. It's all down to the individual.

 

I personally think Starmer is being deliberately vague. Who doesn't want growth for example? It'll get a few votes possibly, especially if Labour look more competent than the nasties (how could they look less competent?). However, I am concerned with the long term and if Starmer is inhibited from doing anything of substance because its either against his fiscal 'rules' or because certain things would alienate potential voters then Labour will feel the consequences in the subsequent election. The Tories will regroup, make no mistake, and the weak coalition of voters Starmer seems to be assembling now will quickly evaporate in my opinion. Labour will lose in 2029/30 if there's no boldness in government. One thing he ought to do - which he wont - is change the voting system from FPTP. Political views in this country are very fragmented and a healthy voting system should reflect that. A non-FPTP system would also TEND to keep the Tories out more effectively given trends over the last 20/30 years.
So in essence in my opinion the pledges are deliberately bland, sound fairly nice but don't really amount to much. In the short-term they've got Labour some attention, made Labour look organised and ready for Government and will probably get a few more votes in from across the spectrum.
At the moment the Emperor still has no clothes and he will need a good tailor after the election if he wants loyal subjects in 5 years time.

 

Sadly the Labour Party is no longer the party of the left and cannot be considered anything like socialist. I think they will make a better job of capitalism than the Tories have recently. But they daren't do anything radical so it will all be middle of the road policies. The last 45 years since Thatcher started the process which led to Truss have been a total disaster for this country.

 

Indeed it is. So long as we don't confuse 'privatisation' and nationalisation!

 

Best not to overthink it, KCP. Get these Jeremys out first, then go from there.

I remember after the Premier League promotion Redders was asked how we'd cope. He drily replied: "Well, we'll try and win a throw-in and build on that!"

 

I just think he's unwittingly damaging Labour as a force. He'll win but he's alienating people. The greens will break through in the next few years on current trends, just like Labour did in the early 20th century and progressives will move to them. He has short term vision in my opinion and he'll damage Labour in the long term. My opinion of course but its not am unreasonable opinion. Getting the nasties out is one thing......

 

Can't do owt in opposition. Get in first, then we'll see what happens.

 

There is no instance of political parties in power moving leftwards. What they are promising now is the absolute maximum they will deliver. Our power as voters is now.

 

I think both Labour & Conservatives are coming to a natural end of life. Neither has any solutions for modern Britain. It wouldn’t surprise me too much if they end up in coalition desperately trying to cling to wealth and privilege within the next 10-20 years. Policies are pretty interchangeable so they make the most obvious coalition partners.

 

Scare tactic?! Jeez…. My wife is a teacher, it’s beyond that… sounds more like facts, but hey if you want to avoid that to suit your world class struggle view then fine.

Anyhow, I’m actually a firm believer that clever kids will rise to the top of any school and in some cases excel further through a local school… but that’s a discussion for another day. I think if we’re talking about scare tactics though, the policy is one itself…. It’s actually kicking the middle and trying to make out that they’re taking something away from everyone else…. which they aren’t….

And as for them just simply recruiting a load of new teachers because they say they will, you really have shown that you don’t know what you are talking about. There’s really good local schools out there that can’t recruit now because the teachers coming through aren’t now resilient enough to want to stick with it. Whole counties which aren’t producing teachers in really mainstream subjects…. The training schools make lots of nice money from the student fees, paid for from a government pot, but no incentive to them for not actually making sure that those new teachers actually get a job and stick with it. Just another method milking money out of the education system. There’s a myth that private schools take all the best teachers or something similar, well actually the pay is not so great and a lot of those schools are really scimpimg back on the pensions from what I hear, so the incentive is actually already pointing towards working at a local school….. just an easy kick to the middle per usual…..

And on that note, I think I’ll flounce off for a bit, happy holidays everyone!

 

I think similar. Its a shame about Labour though if thats the case. They were set up to displace the Liberals and provide some voice for the working man. I think there are big changes happening and unless a progressive labour takes the bull by the horns it will sink. I stand what I said about the Greens. They are making inroads locally and the media are ignoring them but they'll start to make inroads nationally soon if Labour sits to the right. Ill vote green if they have good policies. Simple!