How thick is Starmer

[patman post]

It's so bad the Tories are thinking, talking ,and in danger of acting like socialists ,purely to keep some faith with the electorate.

But isn't that what campaigning is about — ie, identifying what concerns the electorate and identifying ways a government might deal with those concerns...?

[srb7677]

None of those policies were cost neutral.

Rubbish. Lowering the voting age would cost nothing, likewise abolishing zero hours or extending full workers rights to all from day one. These include, by the way, protections against unfair dismissal. 

And capping rents would actually reduce the welfare bill whilst putting more money in working tenants' pockets. Raising the minimum wage would reduce the amount of welfare necessary for low paid workers whilst increasing the tax take from them. And raising the top rate of tax to 50% would increase the tax take, likewise closing as many loopholes as possible.

So yes, these policies would either be cost neutral or would save or raise revenue. Of course, if you yourself are a top rate payer or a profiteering landlord it might restrain your gravy train in the interests of the greater good. But that is fine by me.

[Borchester]

Are you seriously trying - again - to tell me that people didn't vote Labour because of the policies they liked? Can you not see that that is not logical? I told you the reasons people didn't vote for Labour and it wasn't because of policies they liked but other reasons, many of which I explained to you.

Clearly those policies are things a majority are prepared to buy into, as revealed by polling. This is where the left need to start, whilst doing something to address the things that actually lost them support. Ditching the only things people liked about them just because you didn't like it is logically moronic.

It is generally agreed that no one, other than journalists looking for a headline, actually reads party manifestos.

Mostly people vote for low taxes and the wish to be left along.

[Borchester]

Mind you, even George Galloway has blocked me on twitter.

Mean sod.

He could have at least sent you a box of Quality Street

[srb7677]

And what doesn't appear to register with you is that despite people answering opinion polls one way, when it came to voting, they went the other in enough former Labour strongholds for the party to get a Right drubbing (pun intended).

Are you seriously trying - again - to tell me that people didn't vote Labour because of the policies they liked? Can you not see that that is not logical? I told you the reasons people didn't vote for Labour and it wasn't because of policies they liked but other reasons, many of which I explained to you.

Clearly those policies are things a majority are prepared to buy into, as revealed by polling. This is where the left need to start, whilst doing something to address the things that actually lost them support. Ditching the only things people liked about them just because you didn't like it is logically moronic.

[Good old]

If I may interject in your conversation with Mr B, I think you need to define your views of what's Conservative and what's Socialism.

My view is that the majority of the UK electorate is  middle of the road and conservative (small c). All Labour governments have followed that trend. Socialism (cap S) may have attracted some trade union leaders and a few Labour Party notables but, overall, the British have never bought into it.

European socialism has been less strident than Ultra Left UK followers. The more strident have followed Communist teachings. But they've not really exercised much power, because of the images of eastern Europe under USSR domination.

I don't see what current benign Socialist image, UK voters could be persuaded to adopt...

Quiet honestly Patman, Idont feel the need to go into defining  in much detail ,the difference between  the parties . Yes they all bow to the capitalist god, but it has to be clear that there are differences in the priorities held by each as to the use of any success enjoyed by being involved in the whole capitalist ethic.
Over all the British public have been successfully educated to not trust anything other than what they are directed to as the traditional establishment. The bubble that has burst right now has been part of that,only now is it all to clear the economy was never safer with the Tories,. It's so bad the Tories are thinking, talking ,and in danger of acting like socialists ,purely to keep some faith with the electorate.

[Good old]

Even so, I bet that if Momentum & Corbyn try it on, Labour will find winning a majority hard going...

There is no telling yet what Starmer might come up with by the next election . But given present situations, many of Corbyns manifesto promises in someone else's hands might not be so easily rejected.
The truth is the had it all generations are finding it hard to process ,but we have been brought to a fine mess not often experienced for some years now.
One thing is for sure our fix it now society will not wait long who ever gets in to power.

[Nick]

And yet quite a few of those popular policies were either cost neutral (lowering the voting age, security of tenure for private tenants, scrapping exploitative work contracts, full workers' rights from day one) or would have raised or saved money (raising the top rate of tax, closing tax loopholes, capping private rents and thus saving on housing-related welfare, increasing the minimum wage, thereby increasing the tax take whilst reducing in work welfare).

The remainder simply need to be convincingly costed.

None of those policies were cost neutral. The least neutral one being Labour getting in power with Corbyn as PM, lowering the voting age was on the list to do just that. 
A government controlling private landlords and fixing rents! That's communist rule and would just lead to properties being sold and fewer rental properties.

Never seen anyone have a gun against their head whilst signing a contract if employment either. 

What 'Full Rights' would you have the worker get? 

You're living in cloud Cuckoo land if you think there would be no costs involved in the above. Everything you've suggested there increases the prices on the shelves, or the business can now no longer afford the minimum wage and closes putting the workers on the dole. They're now on the dole and the prices on the shelves are higher, you've just lost them their job and increased their cost of living in one go. The landlord that owns the flat where they live is capped on the tent he can charge and it's now costing him money to have someone living there cause the bills were included in the rent and now the heating is on 6 hours a day longer because the tenant is no longer working. The chap who had an extra 50p an hour added to his wage packet is now unemployed and homeless. 

The Tory version is cut Corporation tax, business is making more money, owner decided he can pay workers a bit more and said homeless person is doing ok. 

Think you should re-evaluate your cost neutral stance cause like socialism it doesn't work. 

[srb7677]

Steve is alright and is actually doing the Tories a bit of good. He is hawking his conscience around the left and thereby splitting the vote.

Tory Central Office probably send him birthday cards

Actually my own Tory MP has blocked me on twitter, whilst a former Labour councillor in my locale has done likewise on both twitter and facebook.

Mind you, even George Galloway has blocked me on twitter.

None of them see fit to send me birthday cards, . When it comes to getting up the noses of political opponents, I'm an equal opportunities kind of guy.

[patman post]

As I have said countless times before but which refuses to register on your psyche is the fact that mlost of Labour's 2017 policies were popular and obviously something that people would be willing to buy into, all other things being equal. The left needs to address the causes for it's narrow defeat then, but these causes do not include most of those policies which the public liked.

You seem temperamentally unable to understand the obvious logical fact that Labour lost in spite of those popular policies and not because of them, and mostly for other reasons relating to Brexit, the personal unpopularity of Corbyn amongst many older voters, and gross disunity and public plotting in the PLP. And constant media smears against a leader with far too much weaponisable baggage.

And what doesn't appear to register with you is that despite people answering opinion polls one way, when it came to voting, they went the other in enough former Labour strongholds for the party to get a Right drubbing (pun intended).

I've no doubt that if (probably) Truss doesn't get a grip on energy prices, inflation, and poverty, Labour will likely win the next election. But I doubt it'll be aided by any revamp of a historical Corbyn-McD manifesto. People's anger and hardship will be the driver.

Even so, I bet that if Momentum & Corbyn try it on, Labour will find winning a majority hard going...

[srb7677]

I don't see what current benign Socialist image, UK voters could be persuaded to adopt...

As I have said countless times before but which refuses to register on your psyche is the fact that mlost of Labour's 2017 policies were popular and obviously something that people would be willing to buy into, all other things being equal. The left needs to address the causes for it's narrow defeat then, but these causes do not include most of those policies which the public liked. 

You seem temperamentally unable to understand the obvious logical fact that Labour lost in spite of those popular policies and not because of them, and mostly for other reasons relating to Brexit, the personal unpopularity of Corbyn amongst many older voters, and gross disunity and public plotting in the PLP. And constant media smears against a leader with far too much weaponisable baggage.

[Borchester]

If I may interject in your conversation with Mr B, I think you need to define your views of what's Conservative and what's Socialism.

My view is that the majority of the UK electorate is  middle of the road and conservative (small c). All Labour governments have followed that trend. Socialism (cap S) may have attracted some trade union leaders and a few Labour Party notables but, overall, the British have never bought into it.

European socialism has been less strident than Ultra Left UK followers. The more strident have followed Communist teachings. But they've not really exercised much power, because of the images of eastern Europe under USSR domination.

I don't see what current benign Socialist image, UK voters could be persuaded to adopt...

I suspect that Sir Keir hopes that we will go for the slightly left of centre Social Democrat model that he is pushing, rather than the small C, slightly right of centre version that we have now.

Anyway, we are out the EU now and unlikely to rejoin any time soon. It would have been nice to have bombed Brussels and colonised the Belgians breweries, but we can't have everything in this life. So I am content.

[Borchester]

Allvery humorous Borky but when automation increasingly takes jobs away they better have a good plan because unlike the past the plebs will not be crapped on.

Yes they will Ollie.

We are always being told that the oppressed will rise up and demand justice, but they rarely have and won't do so this time.

[patman post]

Greatest problem we have is anyone actually believing anymore that ,just shouting conservative , is any way to run a modern first world  country. Only England seems to believe it anyway.
Socialism as we know  in other parts of Europe, works well enough to not be rejected.
The rest of the world has found ways to catch up with us ,one way of another ,that will not change, it's us that need to change if we will ever deal with it.

If I may interject in your conversation with Mr B, I think you need to define your views of what's Conservative and what's Socialism.

My view is that the majority of the UK electorate is  middle of the road and conservative (small c). All Labour governments have followed that trend. Socialism (cap S) may have attracted some trade union leaders and a few Labour Party notables but, overall, the British have never bought into it.

European socialism has been less strident than Ultra Left UK followers. The more strident have followed Communist teachings. But they've not really exercised much power, because of the images of eastern Europe under USSR domination. 

I don't see what current benign Socialist image, UK voters could be persuaded to adopt...

[Good old]

This is all the more relevant since our economy is utterly dependent upon consumer spending. If all the jobs are going to be taken by robots how will consumers earn any money to spend? This would inevitably lead to economic collapse unless other radical solutions are found. The only one I can see that can begin to square the circle is most of us working fewer hours whilst the robots are taxed to finance a Universal Basic Income top up.

Anyone who doesnt like that idea needs to come up with some alrenative means of avoiding economic collapse due to a collapse in consumer spending resulting from declining employment opportunities, as AI increasingly comes on grid.

The irony in this whole debate ,which has been happening for  centuries , is the fact that only a gradual use of socialism, in the sense of creating work activities for works sake, subsidies , and welfare arrangements , has ever covered for the fact that machines and technology , can and will supplant the need for the majority of human participation , outside of being useful as consumers. It may well be our present economic troubles are the prelude to the economic collapse you refer to. It's clear the system has failed In some vital areas,. The social response to this is yet to come , and more importantly we don't know yet if it's a contagion that is to deep to control.
But the writing is clearly on the wall when only hand outs can be seen as a cure for what has only ever been a problem of not wanting to share the dividends with more than a few.