Posted without Comment.

The clip cuts off before his answer (or non-answer, which is likely to be fair) is finished though

 

Tiny point of disagreement from me, Jim! It was not a good question. It was lazy, bordering on ignorant. He'd spent 30 minutes in his speech setting out the 'missions' for government. It was explained (and has been for months) that the commitment to that spending figure on the green environment remains, but is subject to Labour's self-determined fiscal rules, which logically enough will determine the timing. Yet Ms. Rigby tries to say "you've ditched it." So in other words, she can't be arsed to listen but instead will present her own version of what's said to cultivate her 30 second soundbite for Sky News! Now I know Starmer will never be a Barack Obama, but with this sort of trite Tory lackey journalism from the press mob (Oh no! I did it again!) it's no wonder Starmer and Labour feel the need to be very guarded in what they throw out there whilever a general election has not yet been called.

 

I’ve not agreed with huge stacks that you’ve written on this thread, but there is absolutely no way I can argue with any condemnation you make here.

But I’d suggest this issue actually highlights the flaw in your argument. Starmer has no plans to nor ever would abolish inheritance tax, so far as I understand. Fair enough he hasn’t committed to the junior doctors getting their request either - but he hasn’t committed to anything he’s unable to actually properly cost.

You might see Labour as having policies which you deem to be Tory. You might be right in places. But the issue is the policies might look Tory - but are in actual fact much less right leaning and extreme to what the actual tories have done - and plan to continue to do.

 

So you could properly fund a doctors pay rise if you wanted to in many ways. Raising taxes on highest earners being one of them. Labour is choosing not to fund things.

 

I’ve worked in politics got further degrees in political studies. I have no idea what Labour stand for. What actual policies they are going to pursue or their general direction. I could give you an answer for all other mainstream parties of the but Labour not with any accuracy.

Take just one thing rail nationalisation. Starmer commits to nationalising at the leadership hustings I attended (one of the reasons I voted for him) Rachel Reeves says Labour won’t renationalise in July 2022. Louise Hague who’s brief it is says in Sept 2023 that Labour will renationalise. Who to believe?

The Green New Deal has been cancelled. It was originally committed to 28 billion per year to 2030. It was then changed to say they aspired to spend 28 billion in the second half of their first term. So a massive cut making it almost meaningless. Now there is no commitment to that either just a vague aspiration. There may be a policy to replace it but the original policy has been ditched.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65857109 this was the promise. The reality is different which is fine but the original policy has long since gone



Fiscal rules are meaningless made up idiocy that no economist has any respect for. To say they are more important than policies to save the planet or take kids out of poverty or to fix the NHS is idiocy beyond belief for a fiat economy. Labour would rather people die for their made up rules than apply moderate Keynesianism

I’m regularly in touch with people I used to work with at the TUC and indeed in the Labour Party and there is a widespread feeling that there is a lack of clarity in what Labour are offering. There is a a schism between the very young inexperienced policy wonks and more experienced staff. Though Sue Gray looks to be sorting that out. Daft that she had to give them a bollocking to stop briefing against Burnham and other Labour mayors but she’s a strong person and a great appointment and is bringing some form of unity but direction and policy has to come from the leaders office.

 

Thanks for sharing your analysis as a former insider. I too wonder what Labour actually stand for. However, there is one thing I am absolutely certain of; another term of Tory rule will finish the country off and destroy the prospects of the younger generations. Our antiquated electoral system gives us no choice but to vote against them which means for the vast majority of constituencies the only option is Labour (I am a Green but a green vote would be a wasted vote here).

 

Good reply JV, but politics (and opinions on it) are not reserved to those who might have had an adjacent job or studied the subject. I dare say there are many specialisms/expertises on here. I'm a simple soul, however! I think that if you take Starmer's keynote speech at the start of last year, his conference speech in October, through to his address and Q&A's today, his 'missions' (as he calls them) have been set out extensively. You may dislike them, but there is no excuse for saying they don't exist. They are there to be read.

On rail nationalisation - yes, the goalposts appear to have moved. But taking them back into public ownership is not the highest priority, to my mind. It may happen anyway due to the train companies faltering. But it would be an expensive exercise if not. But that makes a wider point as to whether you pin yourself to big ideological goals - regardless of their cost - or you respond to a changing economic climate. I personally don't favour a rigid ideologue with no ability to adapt to changing circumstances. Whether the green deal aim has been adapted to meet changing circumstances or 'ditched' is semantics at the end of the day, but I'd say 'ditched' could only apply if nothing of it remains.

Ignoring any rules of fiscal discipline is just plain daft, in my view. 'No economist has any respect for'? How about Paul Johnson, for starters? And Liz Truss might be able to offer a word of advice about what can happen if you disregard them!

I do agree about Sue Gray though. I think she is a cracking appointment! More anon, no doubt. But Lady Kaht awaits me with a drink in hand! Good wishes, JV!

 

Seems to me you know more about Labour's policies than most, so just tell us Labour's policies, instead of just coming out with anti-Labour rhetoric.

 

I’d like to know their policies as well so far we’ve got saving the NHS by handing it over to private healthcare companies , save the planet by not spending £28 billion on green initiatives , improve public transport by continuing the discredited franchise system

 

As set out by John McDonnell today, there's a real risk that a continuation of ineffective policies will see a surge in the far right, as moderates get disallusioned and don't vote at the next but one election, or vote for other party and the far right coalesce around some Tory far right candidate who leverage the vote from Farage's followers.

A failure to re balance the economy is the real enemy here and Starmer, if we take him and his party at face value run that risk.

 

Whatever the Tories do with a smile

 

https://x.com/zackpolanski/status/1742926853944517044?s=46&t=j20zR706pmXrBtdI_7p-NQ

 

Railways are franchised so it costs nothing to renationalise!

Fiscal Rules are completely made up. Gordon Brown had none. Nor did any other chancellor prior to Osbourne. The reason for that is they prevent growth, stop investment and mean you have to pursue austerity They have no basis in reality for a fiat economy. I meant serious economists! The problems for Truss had nothing to do with fiscal rules.