The Labour Files

[danumdon]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/03/uxbridge-brexit-tories-anti-green-labour-local

Very good, prophetic article relating to why Labour managed to get it completely wrong in the Uxbridge  bye election.

Let this be a warning to Starmer come the GE, people are now waking up to his almost dictator like attitude to how the party manages its prospective candidates, I'm very surprised that at a local level the party has not banged heads more with HQ over its constant interference with who gets selected and who stands for a local area.

Locals don't want HQ imposing candidates on them, especially when the candidate is a wet through and through Starmer disciple who has no experience of the real world outside the confines of Labour activism and internal party business.

Nobody wants these political freaks  being imposed on their local constituency.

[drfchound]

Good post dd.
I’m really hoping Labour win.

[albie]

It has been happening all over the country.

Wakefield, Copeland and others follow the same pattern.
Wolverhampton West is the latest;
https://labouroutlook.org/2023/08/03/obituary-labour-party-democracy-in-wolverhampton-west/

Keith is an authoritarian, and sees local democracy as a threat.

[danumdon]

What would be very interesting to see is what the authoritarian does if he gets into power and the sheeple begin to find their voices, what's he going to do then?

I get the feeling that his carefully coiffured plan of saying nothing and agreeing with everything until elected will come crashing down with extreme consequences for the nation.

Beware hungry wolves in sheep's cast offs.

[albie]

Labour's own advisors now pulling up the drawbridge on austerity Rachel Reeves and her crackpot "fiscal rules";
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-fiscal-rules-investment-jim-oneill-b2388449.html

When will the penny drop with team Keith that their shadow chancellor has not got a clue!

[albie]

On it goes, the latest in benefiting from sponsorship culture;
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/keir-starmer-freebies-junkets-tottenham-hotspur-chelsea-coldplay-adele-google/

Don't stand on a picket line, though!

[danumdon]

On it goes, the latest in benefiting from sponsorship culture;
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/keir-starmer-freebies-junkets-tottenham-hotspur-chelsea-coldplay-adele-google/

Don't stand on a picket line, though!

With that headline Open democracy have written every Tory candidates election pamphlet from now until the election proper.

Not a good look for Chairman Starmer.

I must admit, this joker is performing a very good impression of a greed, grabby MP who's out to fill his boots asap.

Looking like all the same, more every day.

[Branton Red]

On it goes, the latest in benefiting from sponsorship culture;
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/keir-starmer-freebies-junkets-tottenham-hotspur-chelsea-coldplay-adele-google/

Don't stand on a picket line, though!

Including hospitality tickets at Donny races I see.

A big political question for the country is: What are Sir Keir Starmer's principles? Well seems we have a part answer.

The more I hear about this bloke the less I like. Troubling. Very troubling.

[tyke1962]

On it goes, the latest in benefiting from sponsorship culture;
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/keir-starmer-freebies-junkets-tottenham-hotspur-chelsea-coldplay-adele-google/

Don't stand on a picket line, though!

What kind of Arsenal season ticket holder would turn up at the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium unless it was for The North London Derby ?

[albie]

Rachel Reeves in the Torygraph on what she won't do;
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/08/26/no-wealth-taxes-labour-rachel-reeves/

Chasing the high net worth demographic with all her might.

[tyke1962]

Rachel Reeves in the Torygraph on what she won't do;
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/08/26/no-wealth-taxes-labour-rachel-reeves/

Chasing the high net worth demographic with all her might.

So Labour now believes in Trickle Down Economics ?

How wonderfully 1980's .

[tyke1962]

Getting thrown out of the Labour Party under Keith is becoming a badge of honour .

Thank the Lord I'm free and liberated from the party that sucks on Thatcher's nipple and drinks her poisoned milk .

[albie]

I think it's worse than that, Tyke.

Reeves and Keith have given up on redistribution of wealth, and in doing so have only very limited options for the redistribution of opportunity.
They accept that the allocation of resources will continue in the same way that it has under Tory austerity, with their own austerity package rebranded as "fiscal rules".

It is a no hope message to those without capital or asset wealth....a promise of permanent exclusion, for themselves and their kids.
Hoping to raise living standards without a plan for redistribution is just wishful thinking.

Reeves reckons growth will deliver improvements alone.
This idea is totally illogical, as it will actually funnel a greater proportion of resources to the asset class, and away from the working poor.
It always has this effect.

The worst thing is that it is all to gain support from people that a real Labour Party should be opposing.
Just look at the interests lining up to buy support at the Labour conference fringe;
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/labour-party-conference-greenwashing-weapons-boeing-palantir-babcock/

Arms dealers, fossil fuel lobbyists pushing carbon capture distractions, spytech innovators.....all people Labour can do business with.
Palantir are the US spytech company interested in the goldmine that is NHS data, and support the Trump campaign in the US.

A proper rogues gallery of vested interests looking to buy influence in the event of a Starmer government.

[SydneyRover]

Oh, we're the cream of the real labour party,

we support the working classes

we f**ked up big time at the vote

..... johnson handed us our arses

[albie]

Letter to Starmer from leading economists pointing out that the stance of Labour is outside mainstream economics;
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-policies-benefit-cuts-reeves-b2399406.html

Kate Pickett, one of the signatories, gives her explanation here:
Why I joined 70 economists and human rights experts urging Labour to change course | Kate Pickett | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/30/keir-starmer-economic-labour-tories-austerity-britain

Sadly, Rachel Reeves was not found a less demanding role in the shadow cabinet reshuffle, so will continue to spout ignorant drivel for the immediate future.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie.

I agree that Labour is being way too cautious in terms of ideal economics.

But as ever, if your going to make a long term difference, you've got to be in power for the long term.

And that means looking at the politics.

Like it or not, Labour was seen as being shambolic on economic fundamentals by the electorate in 2019. They weren't, but they didn't help themselves with a car crash of a campaign, chucking in uncosted promises on the hoof. In polling, only 20% of the electorate thought Labour had the best economic policies.

And that's the field we are playing on. Labour's best way of losing next year is to revive those memories. And though I don't agree with Labour's timidity, I understand it for that very reason. Because in politics, it doesn't matter if you're right in theory if you are in Opposition in practice.

There's a 15-20 year job to do to put right the economic disaster of the this Government. Doing that requires first and foremost that Labour demonstrate that can be trusted. I wish it wasn't the case, but that's where we are.


I'll say again. Anyone on the Left who genuinely and honestly believes that any Labour Government would choose to increase child poverty for example is away with the faries. But the Corbynistas are absolutely convinced that is the case. I wish they'd look in the mirror and ask themselves why they do that.

[albie]

BST,

It is simply not a matter of being "way too cautious", it is about a fundamental error of economics.
Reeves believes that her made up fiscal rules are paramount, and behind that no consideration of raising finances, or policies of redistribution are allowed.

This is incorrect, as the economists point out.
There is no evidence to support the idea that public popularity is in line with these mistakes.
On issues of public ownership, wealth taxation and electoral reform there is widespread public approval.

From these basic errors, because Labour will not identify funding mechanisms to support reforming policies, no costed program is possible.
It is the worst of all worlds to refuse to raise funds for investment in change, then refuse to set out policies for change because funding is not identified.

If Labour do not wish to be seen as transformative, the implication is that they intend to offer better management, rather than reform of the system.
Reeves view that "growth" will deliver change possibilities is away with the fairies.....GDP growth from unspecified policies, a measure of turnover without explanation of the sectors to deliver that growth, or the contribution that it will make to finances is just wishful thinking.

The default position is austerity, in support of the neo-liberal political economy.
https://tribunemag.co.uk/2023/08/austerity-is-labours-choice

The idea that any party can look to a 15/20 year program is nonsense in the age of climate breakdown.
The entire economic applecart will be overturned, and by the end of the next parliament everything will be directed by this.

[SydneyRover]

Did you put any of this to Corbyn, Albie?

All this is irrelevant unless you can guarantee a tory loss at the next GE, is it something you would be willing to put your house on Albie?

[tyke1962]

Albie.

I agree that Labour is being way too cautious in terms of ideal economics.

But as ever, if your going to make a long term difference, you've got to be in power for the long term.

And that means looking at the politics.

Like it or not, Labour was seen as being shambolic on economic fundamentals by the electorate in 2019. They weren't, but they didn't help themselves with a car crash of a campaign, chucking in uncosted promises on the hoof. In polling, only 20% of the electorate thought Labour had the best economic policies.

And that's the field we are playing on. Labour's best way of losing next year is to revive those memories. And though I don't agree with Labour's timidity, I understand it for that very reason. Because in politics, it doesn't matter if you're right in theory if you are in Opposition in practice.

There's a 15-20 year job to do to put right the economic disaster of the this Government. Doing that requires first and foremost that Labour demonstrate that can be trusted. I wish it wasn't the case, but that's where we are.


I'll say again. Anyone on the Left who genuinely and honestly believes that any Labour Government would choose to increase child poverty for example is away with the faries. But the Corbynistas are absolutely convinced that is the case. I wish they'd look in the mirror and ask themselves why they do that.

So you are pinning your hopes on Starmer coming through as a liar then ?

To be fair that narrative looks promising given his history .

[albie]

Sorry Syd, you think it is irrelevant that Reeves is promising austerity from a Labour government?

Blimey, that takes the biscuit!

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Absolutely you can't change your thoughts just because of the party they're coming from.  If you're a fan of Jeremy Corbyns labour and policies I don't see how you can be a fan of Starmers labour, they're very very different.

Labour will attract millions who voted Tory with these policies and get power but they'll have to hold steady, if they then move from those policies they'll get slaughtered the next time round and this is a real chance for them to get power for 15 years +.

[BillyStubbsTears]

What I find most fascinating about the Corbynistas is the way they are so laser-focussed in the consistency with which they excoriate Labour politicians as traitors to the cause when they espouse fiscally responsible policies.

You MUST remember how angry they got over this.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/labourlist.org/2016/03/mcdonnell-promises-to-balance-the-books-with-fiscal-credibility-rule/%3famp

No. Me neither.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Point being BFYP, there isn't that much difference on content. It's just that Jeremy was a God-like omniscient creature who could run a fiscally responsible Government that would also eliminate poverty in a month. While Starmer and Reeves are obviously class traitors.

[SydneyRover]

Absolutely you can't change your thoughts just because of the party they're coming from.  If you're a fan of Jeremy Corbyns labour and policies I don't see how you can be a fan of Starmers labour, they're very very different.

Labour will attract millions who voted Tory with these policies and get power but they'll have to hold steady, if they then move from those policies they'll get slaughtered the next time round and this is a real chance for them to get power for 15 years +.

There must be shed loads you don't see pud, the suffering and starvation of the poor under tory Austerity, yet you continued to vote for them, go lecture someone else.

[SydneyRover]

Sorry Syd, you think it is irrelevant that Reeves is promising austerity from a Labour government?

Blimey, that takes the biscuit!

Keep it in context Albie, I said it was irrelevant if you can't get the tories out, will you put your house on that happening or not?

[albie]

When people start talking about Corbyn, you know they are trying to distract from the issue.
Constantly referring to the past to avoid dealing with the present proposition.

Usually it shows that they have no viable argument to put.
It is not about some kind of personality cult, it is about the policy framework for a change of government.

The people in charge of this are Keith and Rachel, so their positioning is important.
Pulling the strings behind the scenes are the discredited  figures of new Labour, Blair, Campbell and Mandelson.

BST rails about 13 years of Tory austerity, and is correct to do so.
But when Reeves pitches exactly the same formula, after taking advice from George Osbourne, then it is ignored.
It is clear that she is talking complete nonsense, but team Keith fail to call her out.

Governments are elected to make a difference.
So it would be good to set out what the contours of that difference look like.

Here is a starter...tell us what the plan is for dealing with climate change in 2024, across the UK economy?

[SydneyRover]

better ask pud that the tories are still in are they not Albie?

[BillyStubbsTears]

What an utterly weird response Albie.

BFYP was expressing incredulity that anyone who supported Corbyn's policies could support Starmer's.

You supported Corbyn's economics but you don't support Starmer's. Yet both were based on the principle of there being no borrowing to cover current spending.

I'd also point out that the link you posted about the economists' letter (more social activists, but we'll ignore that) commented favourably on the policies of the last Labour Govt. Are you saying you support those policies now? Only, you didn't support them at the time. And the likes of you on the Left refusing to support Labour when it really mattered in 2010 (cos they were Red Tories weren't they?) dumped us into this catastrophe of a decade and a half.

[albie]

The only thing that is weird Billy, is your inability to recognise the flawed logic of your position.
In a nutshell, it is Tory austerity bad, Labour austerity good(ish).

More deceitful whataboutery then follows.
I was not speaking to Pud.

As a socialist, I support socialist policies, whoever is in temporary charge.
I backed the policies under Corbyn, but had some concerns over his management style.

The idea that both Corbyn and Starmer had similar positions is incorrect, "both were based on the principle of there being no borrowing to cover current spending".
In fact, Labour were committed to raise revenue for redistribution from a range of sources, including tax reforms.
This has now been rejected by Starmer/Reeves, without any replacement strategy.

The policies of the last Labour government were correct in some cases, but deeply flawed in others.
You only need to look at the back end loading of ruinous PFI deals to see that.

All of which is nothing to the point, as you well know.
Whatever happened back then is not a template for what happens going forward.

So, in the measure that climate breakdown disrupts the economic system, do you support Reeves belief that waiting until the later years of the next parliament to act  at all is a reasonable response?
It seems the critical issue to me, rather than an artificial attempt to remove debt from the public accounts.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie.

I'm sorry, but I can't make head nor tail of that.

If you're saying that there's no need to balance the current account and there will be no price to pay for that, that's fine. Just don't talk about people who think that breaks the most fundamental rule of macroeconomics being "outside the mainstream."

And your criticism would be far more understandable if you'd regularly ranted about Corbyn's team also agreeing with that as a fiscal rule.