What is the point of labour ?

[BFTD]

4 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

Once again the unwillingness of the Trade Unions to offer any resistance must be called into question.  They must genuinely believe that it’s an electioneering ploy and that a more progressive Starmer will emerge post election.  If so they are going to be very disappointed.

They got away with that excuse twenty-five years ago - if that's the plan this time round, they're either being disingenuous or unbelievably thick. I doubt it's the latter. Presumably a few people have been told that, if they continue to support the Labour Party despite no policies that will benefit their members, they'll personally be well looked after come the Starmer counterrevolution.

If you discount ripping off the Tories and masterful inactivity, what are Labour's policies now? Are they genuinely going to drift into the next election saying as little as possible, and hoping that everyone's so sick of Tory rule that they'll win by default?

[GTG_03]

On 24/08/2023 at 21:03, Ziggy Sobotka said:

Ah labour, the good guys.

[StellarHibee]

The tories basically saying that we need a police state. Labour coming out and complaining that there isn't one already. I think it's very clear where things are heading.

[Guest]

Most of it already been said but a Starmer and Reeves led Labour is arguably further right than the current Sunak Government (if that's what you can call them) and reading about her views and values it's quite clear that she would have been better suited to the Truss cabinet.

The Lib Dems and SNP should just keep hitting it home that a vote for Labour is a vote for the super rich and big business and that a Starmer Reeves combination will create an even bigger divide between the haves and have nots in this country.

Here's a snapshot of what we're dealing with,

Appointed Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in 2013, Reeves proposed that anyone unemployed for two years, or one year if under 25 years old, would be required to take a guaranteed job or lose access to benefits. She caused controversy within the Labour Party by stating Labour would be "tougher" than the Conservative Party in cutting the benefits bill. She caused further controversy in early 2015 by stating "We [Labour] don’t want to be seen as, and we're not, the party to represent those who are out of work"

In September 2016, Reeves described her constituency as being "like a tinderbox" that could explode if immigration was not curbed.

In her role as Shadow Pensions Minister, she campaigned against the Government's proposed acceleration of equalising state pensions ages for men and women.

Reeves did not think Britain would rejoin European Union or its single market in the next 50 years. She said she was against the return of freedom of movement for workers between the UK and EU.

Reeves also said the falling membership of the Labour Party was a good thing, as it was shedding unwelcome supporters.

In 2023, after the Labour Party dropped its pledge to scrap university tuition fees, Reeves said "the circumstances since [Starmer] became leader have changed significantly" and blamed the Conservative government's handling of the economy for the policy shift.

The New Statesman reported that in an interview Reeves said "a Labour government would not introduce annual wealth and land taxes; raise income tax; equalise capital gains rates and income tax; rejoin the European single market and customs union; change the Bank of England’s inflation target and reform its rigid mandate; or take private utilities into public ownership, except for the railways".

Reeves was a proponent of quantitative easing in 2009

Reeves supports the High Speed 2 rail project

Reeves is a vice-chair of Labour Friends of Israel and contributed a chapter to a book about Israeli politics and society.

Yes, She sounds like she'd be great......

 

 

 

 

 

[btb]

2 hours ago, WATTOO said:

Most of it already been said but a Starmer and Reeves led Labour is arguably further right than the current Sunak Government (if that's what you can call them) and reading about her views and values it's quite clear that she would have been better suited to the Truss cabinet.

I think that's one of our major problems that guys like Rory Stewart had to consider which party they were going to join, he went Tory presumably on them offering him the quickest path to Westminster. Truss herself who started as an anti-monarchist Lib-Dem before becoming the neoliberalist of neoliberals. BJ famously chose his side on Brexit for personal gain.

Starmer and Reeves just seem to be in politx for the same reason David Cameron was, "because he thought he'd be rather good at it", I know we can't have a working class credentials test before they're selected as MP candidates but are they really the best that's on offer to Labour PLPs.

[Wee-Bey]

21 hours ago, Dan Steele said:

Reeves - "Labour have no plans for a wealth tax".  Aye well, you could've stopped at plans. Labour. What a joke.

[AndyM]

21 hours ago, Dan Steele said:

Reeves - "Labour have no plans for a wealth tax".  Aye well, you could've stopped at plans. Labour. What a joke.

Their current plans seem to veer between out-b*****ding the Tories or basically being the same as the Tories. 

So much then for the old song "The peoples flag is deepest red......"

[oneteaminglasgow]

Are we still to wait until Labour are in power before calling them a bunch of right wing c***s with no interest in helping anyone but capital, or can we do it now? 

[SandyCromarty]

Scottish Labour politicians in the past treated the Scottish people with disdain and nothing more than a sure vote while they swanned around in the mire and shite of Westminster politics, whatever noise they are making now means not a fuckin thing for the Scottish people as if elected they will revert to type and pin their allegiance to an english based party.

The Labour party was founded by Scots who cared for the working class and fought politically against the establishment, the Labour party now are part of the establishment, is there a working man that can identify with private school educated Sir Keith Starmer??

[Guest]

4 hours ago, btb said:

I think that's one of our major problems that guys like Rory Stewart had to consider which party they were going to join, he went Tory presumably on them offering him the quickest path to Westminster. Truss herself who started as an anti-monarchist Lib-Dem before becoming the neoliberalist of neoliberals. BJ famously chose his side on Brexit for personal gain.

Starmer and Reeves just seem to be in politx for the same reason David Cameron was, "because he thought he'd be rather good at it", I know we can't have a working class credentials test before they're selected as MP candidates but are they really the best that's on offer to Labour PLPs.

Yes, they're all careerists and are now all one in the same. It's all populist driven and they basically just spout out what their teams of analysts and strategists reckon will get them power.

Principles, morals, a plan ?

Forget it. it's all short termism designed to make themselves as rich as they can in as short a time possible and to hell with the country that they're supposed to be governing as it's simply a means to an end.

It really is a shambles and a sad / worrying state of affairs......

[CambieBud]

Sir Keef and Reeves run Labour would probably expel Blair and Mandelson for being too left wing. Let that sink in

[Crùbag]

On 27/08/2023 at 17:56, btb said:

Might be a bonkers reaction to today's result but could the Lib-Dems put forward a manifesto with carefully costed policies balanced with smallish tax increases on Wealth, Inheritance and maybe 1/2p on the top rate of income tax and totally fuck Labour up down south - I don't know whether that would make me laugh or cry.

The Lib-Dems could argue we've stayed where we were it's just Labour who've bypassed us chasing the Tories.

Apart from the major issue of agreeing to implement Brexit now. No UK party is brave enough to oppose that madness.

[Crùbag]

Led by Donkeys turing their attention to right-wing Labour now.

 

[Granny Danger]

10 minutes ago, Crùbag said:

Led by Donkeys turing their attention to right-wing Labour now.

 

One way to kick start the economy and create thousands of new jobs would be to make banners of all of Starmer’s broken promises.

 

[Soapy FFC]

36 minutes ago, Crùbag said:

Led by Donkeys turing their attention to right-wing Labour now.

 

One of the replies to this tweet

 

 

I really do hope extreme parties don't get a foothold in UK politics anytime soon.

 

[MazzyStar]

Another “led by donkeys” stinker. Is there a worse campaign group out there? 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

The PR led to the Nazis argument is genuinely one of the most inaccurate pieces of pish ever.

[BFTD]

• The Lib Dems could announce they've inherited unlimited wealth and would give it to the nation if elected, and they'd still lose. Anyone over 30 would rightly assume they'd meekly hand it over to the Tories for magic beans.
• Keef did whatever was necessary to attain power for himself within the Labour Party. He's now doing whatever's necessary to obtain power for himself at Westminster. Somehow, some are still convinced that he's going to do something, anything, in power that doesn't directly benefit himself, which is a bit of an indicator of how desperate we're getting.
• The argument against proportional representation on here was always that the Farage Party would have a voice in parliament. We've now started down the path towards proper fascism, so I'm not sure how well denying democracy to the far right has worked for us.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MazzyStar said:

Another “led by donkeys” stinker. Is there a worse campaign group out there? 

Why are you against PR? Sincere question, it's not something I'm fully decided on.

[MazzyStar]

26 minutes ago, FreedomFarter said:

Why are you against PR? Sincere question, it's not something I'm fully decided on.

In the grand scheme of things, I dont really care that Keir Starmer doesn’t want proportional representation. What I do care about is that Keir Starmer won’t raise income tax on the wealthiest, nationalise public services and many other abandoned policies of his. That’s not to say I didn’t think he’d abandon these policies, because it’s definitely unsurprising that he has.

The main point of my first post wasn’t really about being for or against PR, and my main issue with Led By Donkeys in this case is their insistence on using Starmers position on PR as their main criticism of him when ,in my opinion, there are much more effective criticisms of Starmer. Perhaps they have already criticised Starmer for some of the things I’ve mentioned and I’ve just not seen it. I’m also fairly certain that proportional representation isn’t something that is a priority of many people at the moment, which makes Led By Donkeys stunt even stranger.