The Labour Files

[danumdon]

Keith has now come out as a fully fledged Tory;
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-real-conservatives-keir-starmer-protect-way-life-2337576

Honest of him to fess up to what we can all see.

So, what next?
Channelling that George Osborne vibe is my bet, Keith and Rachel might even invite the austerian into an advisory role....what could go wrong?

Not sure about anyone else but Starmer really does give the impression that he has no deep foundered principles and is very reliant on focus group think to aid his every move.

We really are totally bereft of any politicians with any statesmanship about them these days, lacking in principles and more importantly competence.

[drfchound]

All the same mate, all the same.

[albie]

False distinction again, BST, leading to the wrong conclusion as usual.

Conservative values are what informs Conservative political philosophy, as Labour values support Labour policies.
Not only is Keith abandoning Labour policies, he is doing so because his core beliefs are set by conservative values.

You cannot construct a Labour political offer based on conservative values without reconfiguring the party as Tory Mark 2.
This is his aim, to pitch for donations from capital interests, and reflect their concerns in policy formulation.

The idea is contradictory, and looks to limit political discussion to neo-liberal assumptions.
Hence the "we are the best conservatives" hookline. None of this is in the interests of lower income voters.

That is why he has been talking up key Thatcherite principles, like home ownership, when the crying need in the housing market is additional stock for social rent.

Likewise, he reckons he can promote new nuclear while reducing the cost of energy to consumers.
Nuclear is 5x more expensive on a unit cost basis than renewables!

Starmer has received past funding from private health interests, and his idea of protecting the NHS seems to involve further private involvement.

So yes, I do disagree with him....if he has any core values, they are nothing to do with the Labour tradition.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie.

Sorry, but you lost me there.

Are you saying that you DO agree with Starmer that Labour should "conserve" (protect) things like the NHS, BBC and the environment or are you saying you don't?

[albie]

The NHS, BBC and the environment are NOT conservative values, and never have been.

The health service has been starved of resources, with outsourcing of key functions.
The BBC has been controlled by Tory appointments, and functions as a state broadcaster to define what can be discussed.
The environment is simply a source of raw materials to the Tories. They are allowing the water companies to dump their shyte in watercourses and the sea.

The idea that these are conservative values is completely insane.
Zero evidence from any source going back years that these are cherished Tory values.

If you can't see that, no-one can help you.

[wilts rover]

What are the conservative values that Starmer said he agreed with in his speech yesterday Albie? That's not what YOU think conservative values are - but what Starmer said they were yesterday.

I don't disagree with you btw in that he has come a long way from what he was saying in his leadership bid to what he is saying now. I do find it hilarious though in that the closer he comes to Tory/Lib Dem ideaology - the less the Tory/Lib Dem voters on here who profess to hold those same ideaologies like him!

[BillyStubbsTears]

I also see Starmer moving Labour further to the right than I'd prefer.

But I also understand why this is happening.

We need 15-20 years of sensible Govt to fix the damage that this Tory Govt had done, from Austerity to Brexit, the normalisation of plain lying, the gutting of local services, the disgrace of our transport network, the underfunding of schools, police and the NHS, the debasing of the principles of the BBC and the petrol thrown on the fires of Culture War.

It's been a decade and a half's work to produce this mess. It won't get fixed in 2-3 years. It's going to take a generation to put it right.

Labour won't get the chance to be in power that long if they appeal to the Left and only the Left. They need to be palatable to the Centre and even some on the Centre-Right.

The Left scream when this is said. "Sell out! Centrist! Blairite! Red Tory!" Because in their world, you be good, honest socialists, everyone joins you on the march to Utopia and you win without compromising.

Except it's never happened.

Anywhere.

Ever.

The centre-left wins long term when it moves the Overton Window slowly over a long time. Not when it stands off stage Left shouting abuse at everyone to the Right of it.

And here's the crux.

The Tories will disintegrate after they lose next year. There are ex-ministers queuing up at that CDO conference at the minute to shout that the party is losing because it's not far right enough, or not enough devoted to the Cult of Boris.

There's going to be a civil war for the soul of the Tory party and it's going to go further to the Right.

Which leaves an opportunity for Labour to secure the support of centre and even Centre-Right voters for a generation.

Starmer's not a Tory. But he's not stupid either. He knows there's a once in a generation chance for Labour to become the automatic party of Govt for a very long time.

It's not sexy. It's not revolutionary. But it is what we need. 

[Ldr]

Spot on Billy, the centre ground is usually where elections are won

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

They absolutely are and Boris Johnson was anything but right wing aswell, he's in many ways at least centrist.

I actually think Sunak could be a good Tory leader but he doesn't have the right people underneath him to make it happen.

BST is right, Labour can't win being too far to the left, they certainly haven't in my lifetime, mind you in my life Tony Blair's the only labour leader ever to win, which says a lot about the rest.

[danumdon]

The trouble with this is that overall it doesn't provide a great deal of choice when political parties are falling over themselves to get to the middle ground, a good percentage of voters on both sides of the spectrum will feel disenfranchised by this race to the middle.

When we look at where we find ourselves politically its no great revelation to say we have fallen well behind the curve and middle ground policies are not going to be radical enough to get us moving in the right direction any time soon.

With Starmer bringing the Labour party towards the centre and the Tories being anything but conservative we now have rehashed policies being produced by both, it failed to work when it was originally mooted and there exist a very good possibility that it will fail again.

What i think the country needs more than anything is a radical rethink of where we are, we can't keep having parties producing election manifestoes and then totally ignoring what they originally stood on and expected to get elected on, we have all seen the way Brexit has been handled, along with just about every other policy the government has tried to implement, failure upon failure is not going to get us heading in the right direction, voters expected policies and commitments to be carried through and implemented, otherwise what's the point?

Conversely we now have Starmer, who could be the next PM rowing back on everything that's close to the Labour voting psyche, trying to do a Tony Blair in this instance may get him elected but how long will it be before he starts to row back on everything he originally committed to?

This is everything we as a country don't need, we need clear heads and radical thinking to kick start our economy, rehashed, failed policy will not get us down the road.

I'd very much rather both parties looked at themselves and worked to provide radical polices that are truly owned by both Labour and Conservatives, let the electorate decide but they really do need to look into their souls and decide are they members of left and right leaning parties or are we all Liberals these days, because if we are then we truly are buggered and can expect more years of failure and drift.

[albie]

Wilts,

I answered your point in previous posts.

Starmer starts by setting up a "straw man" assertion, that the Tories do not represent "conservative values".
Examples given are the NHS, BBC and the environment....these are all really Labour values, which the Tories have undermined.

He then leans into his false assertion, by saying these areas will be better protected under Labour, without any evidence from policy to show how.
It is all part of a strategy to woo "soft tory" voters, because he thinks this will improve electoral prospects.

I think the voter response will be much more nuanced.
Some "red wall" tories will return, but others will distribute to other parties, and large numbers simply will not vote.

Set against any gains this plan brings with older voters must be the potential for loss of support among key groups.
BAME voters, metropolitan groups, the under 40's and marginalised groups will be deterred, and there is no good information on how that might pan out.

We are in a position where previous voting behaviours no longer give an indication of future intentions.
It is clear that social media manipulation is the most powerful influence on the persuadables in the run up to a GE.

Starmer is an old school right winger, using the tools those of his generation understand.
The world of politics is a different place once ChatGBT kicks through the information screen.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Christ sake Albie, he was using a bleeding play on words to make a point.

If he found the cure for cancer you'd complain that he hadn't solved the Palestinian Question.

[albie]

Oh Yes, the play on words!
Dab hand at playing with words, is Keith.

That must have been what was going off with his lies and betrayals over the last few years;
https://youtu.be/Q-tygLDBCZs

Play on words....of course, why didn't I think of that!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie.


Let me help you. In your own post, you've (correctly) copied the word "conservative" with a lower case "c".

Does that help?

[Branton Red]

Oh Yes, the play on words!
Dab hand at playing with words, is Keith.

That must have been what was going off with his lies and betrayals over the last few years;
https://youtu.be/Q-tygLDBCZs

Play on words....of course, why didn't I think of that!

2m51s "I don't see nationalisation there" 

[wilts rover]

As I asked previously Albie, can you tell me what the conservative values are that Starmer agrees with? Which will be in the article the quote is taken from. Not what you THINK are Starmer's conservative values - because again that is all you have written.

I don't agree with a lot of the policy shifts Starmer has announced. But that is because I dont agree with the policy shifts Starmer has announced - not what I THINK he has announced.

[ncRover]

False distinction again, BST, leading to the wrong conclusion as usual.

Conservative values are what informs Conservative political philosophy, as Labour values support Labour policies.
Not only is Keith abandoning Labour policies, he is doing so because his core beliefs are set by conservative values.

You cannot construct a Labour political offer based on conservative values without reconfiguring the party as Tory Mark 2.
This is his aim, to pitch for donations from capital interests, and reflect their concerns in policy formulation.

The idea is contradictory, and looks to limit political discussion to neo-liberal assumptions.
Hence the "we are the best conservatives" hookline. None of this is in the interests of lower income voters.

That is why he has been talking up key Thatcherite principles, like home ownership, when the crying need in the housing market is additional stock for social rent.

Likewise, he reckons he can promote new nuclear while reducing the cost of energy to consumers.
Nuclear is 5x more expensive on a unit cost basis than renewables!

Starmer has received past funding from private health interests, and his idea of protecting the NHS seems to involve further private involvement.

So yes, I do disagree with him....if he has any core values, they are nothing to do with the Labour tradition.

Are renewables so cheap because they are so heavily subsidised and not as reliable? Just picking your brain.

[ncRover]

Starmer:

“I’ll allow more homes in green belt”
“Labour will be the party of housebuilding”

A very good move in my opinion and what the country needs. The tories pander to the rural “not in my back yard types”.

Strangely enough, John McDonnell doesn’t agree. (Start your own party see how you get on?)

He says:

“The Green Belt was championed by the London County Council under Herbert Morrison in 1930s, legislated for by the Attlee Labour Government in 1940s & has been the fundamental basis of a battle to protect the environment in working class urban constituencies like mine over decades”

Blows my mind how some of the older generation prioritises the well-being of some grass over young people being able to afford housing. More socialist utopian thinking from him, he will just want houses to magically become cheaper.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Starmer:

“I’ll allow more homes in green belt”
“Labour will be the party of housebuilding”

A very good move in my opinion and what the country needs. The tories pander to the rural “not in my back yard types”.

Strangely enough, John McDonnell doesn’t agree. (Start your own party see how you get on?)

He says:

“The Green Belt was championed by the London County Council under Herbert Morrison in 1930s, legislated for by the Attlee Labour Government in 1940s & has been the fundamental basis of a battle to protect the environment in working class urban constituencies like mine over decades”

Blows my mind how some of the older generation prioritises the well-being of some grass over young people being able to afford housing. More socialist utopian thinking from him, he will just want houses to magically become cheaper.

Very interesting.  My local councillors will not like that.  We've hundreds of new homes being built round our villages (Edenthorpe) and their response on this was that they do object to it but it's rules set by the Tory government that allow it.  Will be interesting to see how they explain this one to the locals.

I agree with Mcdonnell personally we should be protecting our green spaces.  We need to find that compromise of housebuilding and green spaces.

[albie]

The housing problem is made much worse by landbanking from developers, where they hold assets in anticipation of land value increase.
New housing is welcome, if it is in the area for which there is a need, AND also it is targeted to those most limited by the way the market works.

The UK has a shortage of affordable property for social rent, not a crisis for 3/4 bedroom detached properties.
Developers always propose the latter, because the margins are higher per unit.

It is a fallacy to think that all housebuilding will reduce pressure at the lower end.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Another interesting proposal, which I think is quite sensible.  Again though, tough to stomach you'd think for a lot of labour members and many of those on this forum who have criticised private healthcare.

I wonder what Corbyn and his secret dossier think of it?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-65638171

[BillyStubbsTears]

Another interesting proposal, which I think is quite sensible.  Again though, tough to stomach you'd think for a lot of labour members and many of those on this forum who have criticised private healthcare.

I wonder what Corbyn and his secret dossier think of it?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-65638171

It makes perfect sense to do this in the short-to-medium term.

The NHS has been chronically underfunded for 13 years under this lot. Waiting lists are at horrific levels. When Labour wins next year, it simply will not be possible to click your fingers and immediately magic up the required extra capacity in the NHS to quickly reduce those waiting times. It's going to take the thick end of a decade to repair the damage that this bunch has done.

Meantime, the question is: Do you stick to principles about private health and let people continue to suffer? No brainer for me.

[albie]

BST,

Are you talking about lack of capacity because of staff shortage, or lack of operating facilities?
Not the same problem, are they?

Many of the staff operating in the private sector are NHS professionals moonlighting on the side to boost their income levels.

Both issues need to be addressed, but it is very unclear what Labour are actually proposing, and whether it will be subject to a sunset clause.

[albie]

If people are interested in what is really going on, behind the posturing, then follow the money;
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/mps-staff-offices-donations-million-business-bosses-gambling-climate-sceptics/

Who are the investors, and what do they want for their support up front?

[Colemans Left Hook]

well i found this out in a couple of minutes  - it's India

 

[albie]

More murkiness emerging;
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/labour-pwc-ey-big-four-natwest-hydrogen-keir-starmer-secondment-staff/

Not a good look, this!

[normal rules]

More murkiness emerging;
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/labour-pwc-ey-big-four-natwest-hydrogen-keir-starmer-secondment-staff/

Not a good look, this!

Anyone who thinks that the Labour Party operate in some socialist utopia where shady deals, backhanders, sweeteners and financial incentives for influence and support don’t happen are quite frankly living on another planet.
Politicians all operate in the same world. Left or right.
And in this regard, they are all the same.

[ravenrover]

Although some are worse than others

[BillyStubbsTears]

Yeah of course they are all the same.

That well known socialist propaganda rag The Times reported this week that the last 16 Tory party Treasurer's have between them given £3.5m to the party. 15 of them have been given peerages. It's reported that as of today, there's an unspoken price list, with £800k donation buying you a seat in the Lords.

And no other party does this.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Just a reminder on the topic of Tories and the Lords. Only I have to pinch myself on this one regularly because it's so brazen it is scarcely believable.

The Tories gave a peerage to Lord Lebedev of Siberia.

Lord Lebedev's father is an ex-KGB colonel who is blacklisted by several NATO countries as a Putin agent.

It would be too stupid to be a spy thriller plot. But it's there right under our noses.