Topic: Keir Starmer: your views?

[Zeb]

Study commissioned from a group on the right of the Labour party (formerly Progress when it was Blairite), although that will not have influenced the results.

Soft Conservative supporters make up the overwhelming majority of voters Keir Starmer will need to win over to have a chance of victory at the next election, according to new analysis revealing he has so far failed to gain much backing from the group.

With the Labour leader preparing for a conference that has been built up as the moment he will spell out a clearer vision and direction for the party, an extensive study into the electoral hurdles he faces has underlined the task of winning Tory voters.

Two in five voters who did not vote Labour at the last election are currently open to doing so in the future. Of those, 27% voted Conservative, 17% voted Lib Dem, 3% voted Green and 5% voted for other parties. (The rest did not vote.) However, when analysts took into account the likelihood of people to vote and where the votes were actually needed to win seats, the importance of Tory voters increased hugely.

When the group is adjusted for its likelihood to vote, soft Tory supporters account for 43% of the group. Among voters in the 150 most winnable seats for Labour, they make up 53%. Researchers then added the “double-counting” bonus – where winning a vote from a main opponent counts twice, as it is one fewer for them and one more for Labour. When that was taken into account, soft Tories made up 63% of the persuadable group.

The analysis was drawn up by Opinium’s Chris Curtis for the Progressive Britain group, which sits on the right of the Labour party. Curtis is also part of the team that produces opinion polls for the Observer. “It might seem appealing to concentrate on consolidating supposedly progressive voters under the Labour banner, targeting Lib Dems, Greens and non-voters,” the report concludes. “This would avoid having to reach out to Conservative voters in the centre ground of public opinion. However, such an approach has severe limitations.

“We end up at the unavoidable conclusion that Labour needs to focus its efforts on trying to directly win over these soft Tory voters (with the added, and very real, challenge of doing so without losing progressive voters in the process).”

Figures on the party’s left are already angry at Starmer’s leadership, over his refusal to restore the whip to former leader Jeremy Corbyn and in the belief that he has already abandoned some of the leftwing pledges that helped secure him the leadership.

But there are also complaints on the party’s right that he has failed to show decisively that he is placing winning the next election over retaining some kind of party unity. Some senior figures were also deeply frustrated by an interview by shadow business secretary Ed Miliband last week, in which he recommitted the party to the renationalisation of key utilities.

Starmer has made some progress in improving the party’s image, according to the survey. Among soft Conservative voters 58% think Labour has changed for the better, compared with just 4% who think it has changed for the worse. However, just 19% think that Labour is best placed to stick up for them, compared with 43% who think the Tories are.

The analysis, which included focus groups on the party’s performance under Starmer, said that the party had to do more to change its image with voters over the key issues of welfare, crime and the economy. It also warned against Labour being drawn into so-called “culture war” issues that were not picked out by voters as important in deciding their vote.

Starmer’s personal ratings have fallen since a very strong start as leader, though the study found that the view voters have of him is not yet set in stone. A poll of 250 people who had cooled towards Starmer since last summer found 19% saw him as being indecisive and changing his mind too often. The Conservative voters Labour needs to win over are particularly upset about the way he has opposed the government in recent months, and a perception he has been playing party politics during the pandemic. In total, 17% said that was the main reason they had gone off the Labour leader.

Nathan Yeowell, executive director of Progressive Britain, said: “Keir Starmer has an opportunity to shape a national programme that speaks to the whole country if he engages with enduring bread-and-butter concerns around the workplace, welfare and crime. Labour must be ruthless in going after soft Tory voters if it wants a swift return to national government. Our research shows that it needs to focus its efforts on trying to win over soft Tory voters in the seats that it needs to win in 2023 or 2024.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/18/starmer-win-soft-tory-conservative-voters-labour-election-success

In some ways it's just further confirmation of what was already known. Opinions on Starmer are still in flux, and likely won't solidify until the general election campaign. And while there's always going to be an element of wanting/needing to squeeze down other parties pursuing some of the hobby horses of the past few years leads straight into an electoral cul de sac. About the only thing missing from the Guardian summary is the word 'towns' - the places where you'll find the bulk of those voters whose votes are going to have outsized influence.

[oldfordie]

Study commissioned from a group on the right of the Labour party (formerly Progress when it was Blairite), although that will not have influenced the results.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/18/starmer-win-soft-tory-conservative-voters-labour-election-success

In some ways it's just further confirmation of what was already known. Opinions on Starmer are still in flux, and likely won't solidify until the general election campaign. And while there's always going to be an element of wanting/needing to squeeze down other parties pursuing some of the hobby horses of the past few years leads straight into an electoral cul de sac. About the only thing missing from the Guardian summary is the word 'towns' - the places where you'll find the bulk of those voters whose votes are going to have outsized influence.

Image is extremely important but what is Image.?
Image seems to be a personal view, this view is mostly manipulated by opposition ,media+ social media, people looking for opinions accepting opinions of others. ignorance in most cases.
Pandemic is a good example.
How many times have we heard Labour Starmer critics ripping him apart for agreeing with the Torys policy's on Covid, made no difference when you pointed out how it would be wrong to oppose sensible policy's for the sake of it, you can't just oppose everything the Torys implement.
Yet you have soft Torys arguing Starmers played politics with Covid, opposing for the sake of it, both can't be right, neither one are right, Starmer and Labour opposed the Torys when they believed the Torys were wrong.

The Conservative voters Labour needs to win over are particularly upset about the way he has opposed the government in recent months, and a perception he has been playing party politics during the pandemic. In total, 17% said that was the main reason they had gone off the Labour leader.
 

[Zeb]

Image is extremely important but what is Image.?
Image seems to be a personal view, this view is mostly manipulated by opposition ,media+ social media, people looking for opinions accepting opinions of others. ignorance in most cases.
Pandemic is a good example.
How many times have we heard Labour Starmer critics ripping him apart for agreeing with the Torys policy's on Covid, made no difference when you pointed out how it would be wrong to oppose sensible policy's for the sake of it, you can't just oppose everything the Torys implement.
Yet you have soft Torys arguing Starmers played politics with Covid, opposing for the sake of it, both can't be right, neither one are right, Starmer and Labour opposed the Torys when they believed the Torys were wrong.

The Conservative voters Labour needs to win over are particularly upset about the way he has opposed the government in recent months, and a perception he has been playing party politics during the pandemic. In total, 17% said that was the main reason they had gone off the Labour leader.
 

Yeah, there's a combination of things to it. Chris Curtis is sharing bits of his report ahead of its release next week on his twitter account. This gives some idea of the strength to perceptions of Labour which can be built on, as well as the drawbacks to being seen as representing 'someone else' for people who don't necessarily see themselves as who Labour looks out for:



One of the core issues is always competency on the economy and Labour really struggle with that and even more so coming out of elections where they've behaved to the worst fears/lowest expectations of many voters. Of course the flipside to that was something like the Working Tax Credit ended up being somewhat underplayed politically when Labour was in power.

[oldfordie]

Yeah, there's a combination of things to it. Chris Curtis is sharing bits of his report ahead of its release next week on his twitter account. This gives some idea of the strength to perceptions of Labour which can be built on, as well as the drawbacks to being seen as representing 'someone else' for people who don't necessarily see themselves as who Labour looks out for:



One of the core issues is always competency on the economy and Labour really struggle with that and even more so coming out of elections where they've behaved to the worst fears/lowest expectations of many voters. Of course the flipside to that was something like the Working Tax Credit ended up being somewhat underplayed politically when Labour was in power.

Impossible to please everyone but this does need to be discussed and acknowledged as there is a lot of truth in it. it did my head in in the past, the indefensible being defended.

But some people in our focus groups also thought that ,while Labour stood up for people generally, they weren't on the side of them specifically. One participant said the Conservatives make the rich richer and Labour help the least fortunate but Labour needs to come into the middle and reach everybody.

[Sangria]

Impossible to please everyone but this does need to be discussed and acknowledged as there is a lot of truth in it. it did my head in in the past, the indefensible being defended.

But some people in our focus groups also thought that ,while Labour stood up for people generally, they weren't on the side of them specifically. One participant said the Conservatives make the rich richer and Labour help the least fortunate but Labour needs to come into the middle and reach everybody.

"Labour wants to promote communities."

Not tax the rich and help the poor. One doesn't like being taxed, the other doesn't like to think of themselves as poor.

[oldfordie]

"Labour wants to promote communities."

Not tax the rich and help the poor. One doesn't like being taxed, the other doesn't like to think of themselves as poor.

I don't think that's what people are thinking when they say Labour do help the poor but not me specifically.

[Sangria]

I don't think that's what people are thinking when they say Labour do help the poor but not me specifically.

Many who might qualify for the description disdain it anyway. Helping the poor is mostly seen as helping others who aren't helping themselves. Even when those who merit the description need the help, but don't look for it until in dire straits. It was noted in a study that the amount of benefits being unjustly claimed was smaller than the amount of benefits that was eligible but unclaimed.

[oldfordie]

Many who might qualify for the description disdain it anyway. Helping the poor is mostly seen as helping others who aren't helping themselves. Even when those who merit the description need the help, but don't look for it until in dire straits. It was noted in a study that the amount of benefits being unjustly claimed was smaller than the amount of benefits that was eligible but unclaimed.

My view has always been There but for the grace of god go I.     it's a attitude not everyone has, am sure a few million felt that way in the past but life can be cruel, circumstances can change dramatically. having said that ive had some terrible arguments with people who refused to acknowledge what we all seen around us daily. my point was more about giving the Torys the ammo to attack everyone who relied on government help and that's exactly what happened, the Tories passed laws and still do under false pretence, they came after the vulnerable and the genuine first, the easy touches, the people who didn't know how to fight the system.
Those days are mostly gone nowadays but the image still remains, Labour look after the poor, many people who work hard to provide a better standard of living receive little help. childcare costs £600-£800 a month. no help for years.
single/divorced people take the biggest hammering, working or unemployed, the system s,, on them at every opportunity.
 

[Sangria]

My view has always been There but for the grace of god go I.     it's a attitude not everyone has, am sure a few million felt that way in the past but life can be cruel, circumstances can change dramatically. having said that ive had some terrible arguments with people who refused to acknowledge what we all seen around us daily. my point was more about giving the Torys the ammo to attack everyone who relied on government help and that's exactly what happened, the Tories passed laws and still do under pretence, they came after the vulnerable and the genuine first, the easy touches, the people who didn't know how to fight the system.
Those days are mostly gone nowadays but the image still remains, Labour look after the poor, many people who work hard to provide a better standard of living receive little help. childcare costs £600-£800 a month. no help for years.
single/divorced people take the biggest hammering, working or unemployed, the system s,, on them at every opportunity.

Thus we need to enact the reality, but frame it as a universal need. Helping the poor is electorally divisive, even with the poor themselves. People don't want benefits, they want opportunities. Offer them the latter, and enact the former in a way that complements the latter. The simple message of taxing the rich and helping the poor, good though it may sound to the politically committed, turns off the electorate as a whole.

[Elmo!]

Thus we need to enact the reality, but frame it as a universal need. Helping the poor is electorally divisive, even with the poor themselves. People don't want benefits, they want opportunities. Offer them the latter, and enact the former in a way that complements the latter. The simple message of taxing the rich and helping the poor, good though it may sound to the politically committed, turns off the electorate as a whole.

Absolutely agreed with you here, and I've made the same point in here before. I've always found it a bit odd that so many people in here seem to be against universalism - you see it when things like tuition fees are discussed. It gives everyone skin in the game. But it is often portrayed as pandering to the middle classes, or getting priorities wrong.

[Sangria]

Absolutely agreed with you here, and I've made the same point in here before. I've always found it a bit odd that so many people in here seem to be against universalism - you see it when things like tuition fees are discussed. It gives everyone skin in the game. But it is often portrayed as pandering to the middle classes, or getting priorities wrong.

Depends on what you term universalism. Universalism as a principle works when you can persuade people that what you are talking about is a universal principle. Thus "community", not "rich" and "poor". But universalism is highly inefficient as a practice, because you are giving those who don't need it the same thing as those that do, and because tax money is finite, you are spreading the load too thinly to help the latter. Thus you need to target help.

Labour needs to establish universal principles that encompass all of society, but not commit to universal practices that are highly wasteful. What is clear is that the old left-right political debating language does not serve the left if they want power.

[Elmo!]

Depends on what you term universalism. Universalism as a principle works when you can persuade people that what you are talking about is a universal principle. Thus "community", not "rich" and "poor". But universalism is highly inefficient as a practice, because you are giving those who don't need it the same thing as those that do, and because tax money is finite, you are spreading the load too thinly to help the latter. Thus you need to target help.

Labour needs to establish universal principles that encompass all of society, but not commit to universal practices that are highly wasteful. What is clear is that the old left-right political debating language does not serve the left if they want power.

Depends on the policy I suppose. Things like free prescriptions would be something very simple - that are already free for so many people - that as I understand would cost pretty much nothing to make free for all like they are in Wales and Scotland. There is an argument it saves money in the long run due to the health benefits to society as a whole from people not picking and choosing which prescriptions to get etc.

Some things will no doubt on paper be wasteful, but I think people will be more willing to accept tax rises to raise more revenue if they feel they are getting something for it.

[oldfordie]

Thus we need to enact the reality, but frame it as a universal need. Helping the poor is electorally divisive, even with the poor themselves. People don't want benefits, they want opportunities. Offer them the latter, and enact the former in a way that complements the latter. The simple message of taxing the rich and helping the poor, good though it may sound to the politically committed, turns off the electorate as a whole.

Yeah, it's hard finding the right balance. I think you could be right on selling it as a Universal need, decency argument, everyone has there own idea of what Fair means when they say they want the system to be Fair. maybe a change in attitudes is the answer rather than thinking new policies will win everybody over. I think Labours just repeating this same mistake.

[jonnypb]

Depends on the policy I suppose. Things like free prescriptions would be something very simple - that are already free for so many people - that as I understand would cost pretty much nothing to make free for all like they are in Wales and Scotland. There is an argument it saves money in the long run due to the health benefits to society as a whole from people not picking and choosing which prescriptions to get etc.

Some things will no doubt on paper be wasteful, but I think people will be more willing to accept tax rises to raise more revenue if they feel they are getting something for it.

Not sure that would be true, it would be a huge cost to make it free for all.  Plus it would open the door for people to abuse prescriptions a lot more to what they already do.  The NHS already spends over £80M a year prescribing paracetamol alone for people, this is something that you can go and buy for 15p in Aldi.

[Elmo!]

Not sure that would be true, it would be a huge cost to make it free for all.  Plus it would open the door for people to abuse prescriptions a lot more to what they already do.  The NHS already spends over £80M a year prescribing paracetamol alone for people, this is something that you can go and buy for 15p in Aldi.

Prescriptions have been free in Scotland for years. The cost has gone up ~25% according to this over a period of ten years (a few years old now), but it is put down to things like aging population and new drugs, not the things you mention.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-44937793

I do agree about the paracetamol issue though, but that could be fixed separate from the cost of prescriptions.

[Zeb]

One case for universalism is actually in benefits where those which are not means tested tend to retain their value over time better than those which are. (At least until Cameron and Osborne got elected heh.) It gets harder when that shifts to things like taxation such as student fees where the original intent of the system was to introduce a graduate tax to help pay for a large expansion to the numbers entering higher education. It obviously doesn't help students who never make the threshold for payments to cancel the debt they'll never have to pay back anyway.

[Welshred]

He's starting to come out with things on how Labour will govern if elected over the past few weeks, I think we'll be hard pushed to find anyone who disagrees with this won't we?

https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1439575820050255876?s=20

[Nobby Reserve]

Some things will no doubt on paper be wasteful, but I think people will be more willing to accept tax rises to raise more revenue if they feel they are getting something for it.

 

That's the exact principle.

When the last Labour government were bringing in things like Child Tax Credit, the Child Trust Fund thing, etc, there were some right-wing commentators bemoaning that Labour was aiming to get as many people as possible invested into the principle of state support in exchange for higher taxes, to boost their own electoral support. I don't know if this played a part in the thinking of the Labour strategists, but as an idea, it's clever.

When the Tory-led government took over in 2010, all those were either slashed or severely reduced in scope - of course, citing 'austerity' (wankers).

[Nobby Reserve]

He's starting to come out with things on how Labour will govern if elected over the past few weeks, I think we'll be hard pushed to find anyone who disagrees with this won't we?

https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1439575820050255876?s=20

How is that different to the vague promises every party makes to 'end' something that's not right?

[classycarra]

Prescriptions have been free in Scotland for years. The cost has gone up ~25% according to this over a period of ten years (a few years old now), but it is put down to things like aging population and new drugs, not the things you mention.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-44937793

I do agree about the paracetamol issue though, but that could be fixed separate from the cost of prescriptions.

Yep as you say there's a lot of things to work through here.

Just doing some back of envelop maths, if you apply that cost per person in the 2018 article to the population of England, that would cost around £14,000,000,000 - around 10.7 times higher a cost than the bill of £1.3 bill in that article.

[Elmo!]

Yep as you say there's a lot of things to work through here.

Just doing some back of envelop maths, if you apply that cost per person in the 2018 article to the population of England, that would cost around £14,000,000,000 - around 10.7 times higher a cost than the bill of £1.3 bill in that article.

To be honest I'm reading that article again and it's written really badly. They are saying it has gone up 25% in 10 years (up to 2018), but free prescriptions were introduced in 2011....

It seems to hint that the cost of the policy has gone up 25%, but for the initial 3 years of that 10year period the policy hadn't been introduced.

[Sangria]

To be honest I'm reading that article again and it's written really badly. They are saying it has gone up 25% in 10 years (up to 2018), but free prescriptions were introduced in 2011....

It seems to hint that the cost of the policy has gone up 25%, but for the initial 3 years of that 10year period the policy hadn't been introduced.

Studies and policies aren't necessarily in step with each other. Relevant studies may overlap or underlap with policies one is looking at. Especially when we're looking at a time period of a decade. Just because a policy starts from year x does not mean there is a study covering only the period from or up to year x. Unless one can uncover exactly a more apposite set of data to work from.

[classycarra]

To be honest I'm reading that article again and it's written really badly. They are saying it has gone up 25% in 10 years (up to 2018), but free prescriptions were introduced in 2011....

It seems to hint that the cost of the policy has gone up 25%, but for the initial 3 years of that 10year period the policy hadn't been introduced.

Yeah fair enough. Wasn't a criticism of your post or point intended, more just thinking out loud how those numbers would look with a larger population. Agree in principle with a broader welfare state, but also the public health zealot in me sees those figures and thinks christ imagine if billions were invested in growing public health infrastructure with the goal of improving everyones health and to prevent such huge healthcare costs being required in the first place. Can dream!

[Elmo!]

Yeah fair enough. Wasn't a criticism of your post or point intended, more just thinking out loud how those numbers would look with a larger population. Agree in principle with a broader welfare state, but also the public health zealot in me sees those figures and thinks christ imagine if billions were invested in growing public health infrastructure with the goal of improving everyones health and to prevent such huge healthcare costs being required in the first place. Can dream!

What I can't seem to find is how much is currently spent on prescriptions by the NHS/Government in England. This article suggests around 90% are free anyway and it would cost around £700m to make them all free, so that does suggest they are probably spending circa £10bn already.

https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/nhs-prescription-charges/

[Zeb]

What I can't seem to find is how much is currently spent on prescriptions by the NHS/Government in England. This article suggests around 90% are free anyway and it would cost around £700m to make them all free, so that does suggest they are probably spending circa £10bn already.

https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/nhs-prescription-charges/

You're right, yeah.

"In 2019 the cost of the prescriptions dispensed in the community in England was £9.08 billion. This was an increase of 2.81% (£248 million) from £8.83 billion in 2018."

https://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/prescribing-costs-2019-published

2020/21's was there but I'd missed it.

"The cost of prescription items dispensed in the community in England was £9.61 billion, a 3.49% increase of £324 million from £9.28 billion in 2019/20."

https://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/statistical-collections/prescription-cost-analysis-england/prescription-cost-analysis-england-202021


This was updated start of this month, it's not too different from the article in the number it gives. Charged prescriptions in the community raise £600m a year, 90% of prescriptions are free, and a big driver behind that 90% figure is that 63% of all prescriptions go to people aged 60 or over. Later on it points out that 95% of over 60s will have one prescription a year while half will need at least one prescription a month. And obviously the consultation is because Tories are Torying over whether to change who's eligible.

[No666]

I also want to see a Financial Transactions Tax (dubbed 'the Robin Hood Tax')

If I had total control, I'd annex all the Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories, freeze all bank and corporate assets, and levy a 'wealth tax' of 50% of all assets over, say, £10m held an individual or corporation.

There's an estimated $20trillion of money 'missing' from the financial system. A huge proportion is hidden in these and other secretive tax haven jurisdictions (using labyrinthine shell company structures)

I have a barely-controllable hatred for these super-rich scum who stash their often ill-gotten fortunes out of the reach of tax authorities (despite having so much money they could never hope to spend even a small proportion of it in their lifetimes)

The problem is always that anyone with the money can evade it. I don't know if this guy's reasoning or economics stand up, but if he's right, this would be a big vote winner. Wouldn't hit the middle middle-classes so wouldn't frighten the horses.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/20/new-wealth-tax-uk-arguments

[filopastry]

The problem is always that anyone with the money can evade it. I don't know if this guy's reasoning or economics stand up, but if he's right, this would be a big vote winner. Wouldn't hit the middle middle-classes so wouldn't frighten the horses.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/20/new-wealth-tax-uk-arguments

I actually think there may well be a place for a wealth tax, but realistically it would need to be at non-punitive rates to be a consistent revenue generator, the idea that you could come back and tax the rich 10% of their total wealth every single year and not start to seriously impact the tax base isn't remotely feasible in my opinion.

[Zeb]

A windfall tax on pandemic profits is more than justified on some companies, although I wouldn't put it past the Tories to get there first on it and pretend it's for 'levelling up'. And obviously that'd be a one off thing. Reeves is starting to get to the funding for what Labour will do, in terms of tax rises and closing loopholes. eg: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/19/labour-plans-to-raise-500m-by-closing-fund-managers-tax-loophole

Would be very surprised if Hodge's proposals from a decade ago aren't dusted off at some point for tax havens, although their implementation in the US is probably not going to be directly comparable to introducing them in the UK the regulations on forcing banks to reveal US nationals' untaxed assets has led to some success there.

[No666]

Big vote winner if they barred foreign non-residents from owning property, too. More tinkering around the edges, similar to the Fund Manager proposal, but only harms Tory-supporting estate agents in the South East, and has some effect on house prices without crashing the market entirely. The new developments around Cambridge, my neck of the woods - maybe 20% went to Chinese middle-class 'investors' and lie empty apparently. Why? Just why? -I think the overall impression you would give by such small actions is more important than the immediate effects, in a way.

[Nobby Reserve]

Big vote winner if they barred foreign non-residents from owning property, too. More tinkering around the edges, similar to the Fund Manager proposal, but only harms Tory-supporting estate agents in the South East, and has some effect on house prices without crashing the market entirely. The new developments around Cambridge, my neck of the woods - maybe 20% went to Chinese middle-class 'investors' and lie empty apparently. Why? Just why? -I think the overall impression you would give by such small actions is more important than the immediate effects, in a way.

Foreign individuals owning UK property isn't so much the problem.

There's 44,000 land titles in London alone owned by foreign companies - and 91% of those are owned by companies located in 'secrecy jurisdictions'.

https://www.transparency.org.uk/foreign-ownership-london-property-shrouded-secrecy

The trouble with tackling this is the power wielded by these people. There's been a few comments in this thread about how these people just move their money to escape tax authorities. Whilst they can move money around, they prefer not to - and increasingly buy political influence (and it's worth remembering that avoiding tax is only one element of their financial shithousery).

Look at the corrupt & dodgy 'Russians' investing (and it is investing) in the Tory Party to influence policy. Look at the opaque funding of the Leave campaign (just whose money did that gobshite Banks channel?).

The flow of dirty money through London and into the British Overseas Territories & Crown dependencies is enormous. It feeds an entire £multi-billion industry in London and the BOTs/CDs. Don't underestimate how fiercely this will be protected by those with vested interests.

Tory politicians opposing the EU were always either strong laissez-faire capitalists who hated the regulations imposed by the EU (they wanted their 'bonfire of red tape') or simply dimwitted, flagshagging nostalgics pining for the days of Empire who couldn't countenance Great Britain as merely a cog in a bigger wheel. They were troublesome and loud, but no real threat - apart to a Tory government with a thin majority, of course.

It was only in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis, when the EU began to talk seriously about tackling endemic tax abuse and money laundering (they announced the first drafts of AMLD & ATAD in 2014) that serious money began to fund the anti-EU movement. Between 2009 and 2013, UKIP averaged annual donations of £660k. In 2014, that rocketed to £3.5m. Once that twat Cameron announced the referendum, a lot of that funding - and much more - switched the two main Leave campaign groups.

The vast majority of that money came from people with vested financial interests in keeping the ultra-secretive status of the BOTs/CDs in place and out of the reach of investigators (criminal or tax) in EU countries.


We need to tackle these scum. But it will take balls of steel and a very quick start if Labour get elected. And the other side will play extremely dirty.

[Zeb]

Big vote winner if they barred foreign non-residents from owning property, too. More tinkering around the edges, similar to the Fund Manager proposal, but only harms Tory-supporting estate agents in the South East, and has some effect on house prices without crashing the market entirely. The new developments around Cambridge, my neck of the woods - maybe 20% went to Chinese middle-class 'investors' and lie empty apparently. Why? Just why? -I think the overall impression you would give by such small actions is more important than the immediate effects, in a way.

Yeah, there's definitely a large element of the signal wanting to be sent. So far as I'm aware, some of the older proposals on ownership of housing are still going to be pursued, although the Tories could quite easily follow up their own advice themselves to do the same. So public register of who owns what to try and force out housing being used as untaxed piggy banks by foreign investors as part of a crack down on money laundering. Whether it's effective or not or really does much more than sound good I'll pass on.

----

Looks like Labour are vanishing back down the rabbit hole of 'what truly is party democracy?'. Seems like there's an attempt to change the rules on leadership elections away from one person, one vote back to an electoral college where unions get a third of the votes, MPs a third, and members a third. Everyone is now arguing the completely opposite position they did historically - the right of the party used to be mad keen on OMOV and the hard left absolutely dead set against it. Meh. There is, in my view, a good argument that the most democratic way to do it is to increase the influence of MPs (and other actual elected officials) on who becomes leader because they're actually elected and MPs in particular have to work with and have confidence in the party leader. Just as leaders of local councils have to have the confidence of the local councillors. Also goes to the question of whether a selectorate paying £3 should really have the power to choose a Prime Minister potentially without the electorate ever having a say. The argument goes to all political parties and is put forward well by constitutional historian Robert Saunders who made it when Kippers were flocking to the Tories to get Johnson selected as May's successor. Against that, it's another stupid internal bunfight to be having.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Let the PLP select their leader. They are the ones who have the best handle on this and have work day in, day out with him/her.

[TepidT2O]

Let the PLP select their leader. They are the ones who have the best handle on this and have work day in, day out with him/her.

The PLP have to have the ability to say NO.

But I’m not sure it should be divorced from everyone else.

[Nobby Reserve]

The PLP have to have the ability to say NO.

But I’m not sure it should be divorced from everyone else.

And the PLP have to endorse each candidate.

I think Starmer is unnecessarily shooting himself in the foot here, and in so doing so injuring the Labour Party in the process.

[Zeb]

The limits of the PLP's veto power were demonstrated when a compliant NEC rewrote the rules to allow a candidate to stand without being endorsed.

Some of the changes make sense - removing an MP should have a higher bar as it was utterly farcical forcing sitting MPs to campaign among the party membership ahead of a general election. I'm kind of ambivalent to how leadership votes are conducted, there's no real 'right' answer but Miliband's changes have hardly led to a period of even passable leaders let alone Labour being in government.

This isn't necessarily harmful to Labour if one takes the view that the next election is lost before it's started, which is a reasonable starting point, and that there's a plan over two cycles (or longer) of consolidating and then moving forward. Is there that though? There's an obvious need to continue the detoxification of the party regardless and there's a strong argument that the constant internal elections help feed the factional divides.

[filopastry]

One change which I would favour is restricting the vote in a leadership election to people who were members for a certain number of months before the election was called, I don't think the entryism that the current system encourages is particularly helpful.

[No666]

I see what you mean about rabbit holes, Zeb, but also can appreciate that it's better to get this out of the way now and not be seen to be fiddling with the small print closer to an election.

[Nobby Reserve]

I see what you mean about rabbit holes, Zeb, but also can appreciate that it's better to get this out of the way now and not be seen to be fiddling with the small print closer to an election.

What with the right-wing of the Party do if the unions elect the 'wrong' leader again? Change it back to OMOV once more?

[RainbowFlick]

https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1233680321289256960?s=20

aged well

[Sangria]

What with the right-wing of the Party do if the unions elect the 'wrong' leader again? Change it back to OMOV once more?

One way or another, democracy fails when people insist on exercising their democratic right to be idiots. Democracy is an effective bulwark against tyranny. But tyranny is no longer a threat in the liberal democratic west. Idiocy is the main threat, and the democratic right to vote for whatever idiocy they feel like, with the moral force of democracy backing their choice.