Topic: Labour Thread

[oldfordie]

It's depressing how may people are still absolute meh over Starmer and don't consider him PM material at all. They don't find him very inspiring.

I'm only guessing, but considering his background in law, rather than lead the witness he's allowed the defendant to incriminate themselves. Labour seem to have become adept at laying quiet, subtle little traps for the Tories to fall into, but they're so subtle most voters don't seem to realise them for what they are.

I could just be seeing smoke and mirrors though.

Am not sure if inspiring is the most important quality we should value if we want real change for the good. am certain millions felt inspired when Frottage made his Brexit speeches, same with Johnson and others,  we should look for more important things when judging our leaders.
Their intentions, vision and foresight, how they want to change this country for the better.
Starmer gave a brilliant speech to the TUC the other day, went down well.
As a life long trade unionist it was refreshing to hear a leader who gets it.
How to fight and win rather than repeating the same old mistakes.
Ive wondered why the unions decided to form the Labour party, the idea they formed them to back them by standing on picket lines is ridicules. they realised the protests and strikes only do so much, laws have to be changed to protect unions and workers, fighting a stacked system was impossible, they desperately needed to get people into Parliament to change the laws to protect us all.
That lesson has been lost. it was brilliant to hear Starmer making the point to the TUC which was received well.

Extracts from his speech.

It’s what both of us fight for – party and movement.

But we must fight in different ways…

Must accept that when it comes to delivering for working people, we have different jobs.

I support the right to strike – unequivocally.

I understand it’s always a last resort.

The Tory idea that working people give up their wages lightly…

In the worst cost-of-living crisis for a century…

Is completely unserious about the pain people feel right now.

You’re representing the democratic choice of your members.

You’re doing your job.

I respect that.

But my job is different.

The single most important thing I can do for working people is to make sure we win the next election and get a Labour Government.
ow we create a modern industrial strategy together.

None of this happens unless Labour is in power…

So I will never be ashamed to say my Labour Party wants to increase worker power in our economy.

But nor will I apologise for approaching questions on industrial action as a potential Labour government.

The Labour Party is not doing its job when it’s in opposition.

And I will not let this era of Tory chaos…

Stagnation…

Attacks on working people…

Go on any longer.

This cannot be a re-run of the 1980s…

That’s what they want.


So we will strengthen the role of trade unions in our society .

An economy that is strong for working people, cannot weaken the institutions that give working people strength.

And it cannot be built on insecure foundations…

Security at work is the bedrock for aspiration and opportunity…

For giving people the confidence to get on.

Nobody does their best work if they’re wracked with fear about the future.

If their contract gives them no protection to stand up for their rights at work. 

Or if a proper safety net doesn’t support them in times of sickness and poor health…

That’s what Labour’s New Deal for Working People is about…

That’s why we’ll end fire and rehire…

ban zero-hour contracts…

extend parental leave…

strengthen flexible working…

better protections for pregnant women…

mandatory reporting on ethnicity pay gaps…

statutory sick pay for all…

a single worker status…

no more one-sided flexibility…

As far as I’m concerned, that’s not just a list of rights…

It’s a statement of intent on social justice…

[Nobby Reserve]

I suppose that could happen but that's exactly what I meant about he's not screaming and shouting everything from the rooftops.

As far as I'm aware he's not said he'll allow things to continue and as much as that's not inspiring he'd very quickly turn people against voting labour if he was a shouty 70s shop steward type activist.

He can't and shouldn't be making promises he either can't keep or has no intention of doing as that gains nothing but disappointment.

He's broken many of the pledges he set out in his leadership campaign. These weren't radical things, just basic aspects of centre-leftism (or what used to be centre-leftism). I agree that he shouldn't tying himself to unachievable commitments, but by ruling out too much, it's also tying.

[reddebs]

He's broken many of the pledges he set out in his leadership campaign. These weren't radical things, just basic aspects of centre-leftism (or what used to be centre-leftism). I agree that he shouldn't tying himself to unachievable commitments, but by ruling out too much, it's also tying.

I didn't follow any of the campaign so I've no idea what promises any of them made.  Having said that I don't know how these things work so I'm guessing they were things he'd promised to change within the party itself as how can he have changed policy if he's not the PM?

[Nobby Reserve]

I didn't follow any of the campaign so I've no idea what promises any of them made.   

https://www.clpd.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Keir-Starmers-10-Pledges.pdf

[reddebs]

https://www.clpd.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Keir-Starmers-10-Pledges.pdf

Ok so which isn't he now doing?

[TepidT2O]

Ok so which isn't he now doing?

Well quite

[Nobby Reserve]

Ok so which isn't he now doing?

Completely or in part (each pledge is made up of different aspects, some easy and some less so):

1 - Both Dodds and Reeves have categorically ruled out taxing high earners more

2 - He's pivoted against scrapping Tuition Fees

4 - He's ruled out imposing sanctions on the Apartheid state of Israel that denies millions of Palestinian Arabs basic human rights and a right to returnbafter bring ethnically cleansed

5 - He's ruled out re-nationalising the utilities

6 - He's ruled out rejoining the Single Market

8 - He's ruled out giving Scotland and Wales more devolved powers saying “we can’t have four nations pulling in different directions.”

[TepidT2O]

Completely or in part (each pledge is made up of different aspects, some easy and some less so):

1 - Both Dodds and Reeves have categorically ruled out taxing high earners more
I haven’t seen this, I would be interested to.  I know that they have talked about stopping tax avoidance etc…
2 - He's pivoted against scrapping Tuition Fees
He's said he supports scrapping them. But in reality, it’s enormously expensive and benefits the middle classes most of all. Hardly a priority for government I would suggest. So, you can support scrapping them without it being practically the right thing to do given other priorities
4 - He's ruled out imposing sanctions on the Apartheid state of Israel that denies millions of Palestinian Arabs basic human rights and a right to returnbafter bring ethnically cleansed
He makes no mention of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in any of his commitments, so big shock…not.
5 - He's ruled out re-nationalising the utilities
again, he’s said he supports it.  He’s announced building a nationalised power company.  But once again, you can support it and it not be a finically possible act, or even a high priority
6 - He's ruled out rejoining the Single Market
Again, this isn’t something he mentions in his commitments
8 - He's ruled out giving Scotland and Wales more devolved powers saying “we can’t have four nations pulling in different directions.”
”Push power, wealth and opportunity away from white hall”.  Well yes, they’ve or used that.  But they’ve also been quite clear that labour is a unionist party (which shouldn’t be a shock to anyone as it has been since day one.

Personally I don’t think people read his commitments very clearly or actually thought about what the words might actually meant.

For me, he’s been pretty consistent in doing what he’s said.

[surfer. Fuck you generator.]

Starmer's work, background and relevant interests far outstrip anyone for the top job in the UK imo, the team around him seem sharp and competent. They will do an excellent job if you get them their shot and leave them to it. The Tories aren't a comparison, they simply don't govern, there's nothing to assess with. It's a failure of the system that it lets in those creatures more interested in the drama, debating, and sitting in hallowed seats preening themselves rather than actually doing the job they're paid to do properly. The Labour side just need to get through.

[Yorkykopite]

Completely or in part (each pledge is made up of different aspects, some easy and some less so):

1 - Both Dodds and Reeves have categorically ruled out taxing high earners more

2 - He's pivoted against scrapping Tuition Fees

4 - He's ruled out imposing sanctions on the Apartheid state of Israel that denies millions of Palestinian Arabs basic human rights and a right to returnbafter bring ethnically cleansed

5 - He's ruled out re-nationalising the utilities

6 - He's ruled out rejoining the Single Market

8 - He's ruled out giving Scotland and Wales more devolved powers saying “we can’t have four nations pulling in different directions.”

This says more about your wishful thinking than Starmer's objective pledges. You seem to have read all your own desires into what he said. That's maybe why you think he let you down?

[classycarra]

"Done the decent thing" is just an expression relating to him fully resigning. Thought SHP's post made that clear, and wasn't at all trying to justify his actions in relation to the events in question.

If you read back what I said you'll find that I interpreted SHP's post exactly that way

[reddebs]

Completely or in part (each pledge is made up of different aspects, some easy and some less so):

1 - Both Dodds and Reeves have categorically ruled out taxing high earners more

2 - He's pivoted against scrapping Tuition Fees

4 - He's ruled out imposing sanctions on the Apartheid state of Israel that denies millions of Palestinian Arabs basic human rights and a right to returnbafter bring ethnically cleansed

5 - He's ruled out re-nationalising the utilities

6 - He's ruled out rejoining the Single Market

8 - He's ruled out giving Scotland and Wales more devolved powers saying “we can’t have four nations pulling in different directions.”

I hadn't realised they'd already put together an election manifesto so I wasn't aware of any of this but I'd have thought the right wing media would have been all over it if they had in an attempt to deflect away from the Tory meltdown that's been going on.

Although Tepid and Yorky's responses seem far more plausible 👍

[Kenny's Jacket]

I hadn't realised they'd already put together an election manifesto so I wasn't aware of any of this but I'd have thought the right wing media would have been all over it if they had in an attempt to deflect away from the Tory meltdown that's been going on.

Although Tepid and Yorky's responses seem far more plausible 👍

Thats not his election manifesto Debs, it's his leadership one.  Election one will get released when an election gets announced. 

[reddebs]

Thats not his election manifesto Debs, it's his leadership one.  Election one will get released when an election gets announced.

Sorry mate you've lost me. 

Those promises are surely what he'd do if he became PM as he can't possibly implement them without being in government?

[classycarra]

Sorry mate you've lost me. 

Those promises are surely what he'd do if he became PM as he can't possibly implement them without being in government?

Those are a couple of years old, and very much politics for the party as opposed to the country.

The party has said the situation has changed earlier in the summer, on account of the financial situation (around the time Liz Truss was promoting her economic extremism, in the tory leadership campaign). Just found details here:

https://labourlist.org/2022/07/starmer-on-ten-leadership-pledges-the-financial-situation-has-changed/

There's not been an election manifesto yet because there's no election called as it stands. You're right though that it's oddly premature to be judging Starmer's performance on them, given he's currently out of power.

[oldfordie]

Those are a couple of years old, and very much politics for the party as opposed to the country.

The party has said the situation has changed earlier in the summer, on account of the financial situation (around the time Liz Truss was promoting her economic extremism, in the tory leadership campaign). Just found details here:

https://labourlist.org/2022/07/starmer-on-ten-leadership-pledges-the-financial-situation-has-changed/

There's not been an election manifesto yet because there's no election called as it stands. You're right though that it's oddly premature to be judging Starmer's performance on them, given he's currently out of power.

Yeah, Jess Philips was talking about the situation we face on QT last night, if you would of asked her what she/Labour will do 5 weeks ago then she would have given a completely different answer, she would have said safe havens everywhere for victims of Domestic and child abuse, she can't make that promise now after what Liz Truss has done to the economy, nobody has a clue on the state of the economy. nobody has a clue what the economy will be like when Labour take over. made me think. people would have been accusing Philips of breaking her promises if they had just judged her on what she would have said 5 weeks ago and what she actually trys to do when Labour hopefully win power.
I think this should really go without saying, all bets are off, we have to see what things are like when we know the economic situation of the country.

[bigbonedrawky]

Yeah, I’d be on the other side of the fence form you on that I think…

But to be honest, it does neither side any good.

fuck the tories…that’s my mantra

Well it didn't take long for the nasty sh*t. Let's see if we're on the same side of the fence...#more in common 
T'other day Rachel Reeves The Lady who sits to Sir Kiers Right...obviously ( not to be confused with the lady who sit's to his Left, who btw is looking a bit pissed since her boyfriend got ditched by TLP)
Appeared to be channelling Frottage with her comments about assylum seekers and how the Tory's need to speed up the deportations...
I don't condone Tory policies on assylum seekers so obviously I don't think they should speed up the deportations either.
Needless to say I dont agree with her blowing dog whistles either.
What are your thoughts on the matter ?

[reddebs]

Those are a couple of years old, and very much politics for the party as opposed to the country.

The party has said the situation has changed earlier in the summer, on account of the financial situation (around the time Liz Truss was promoting her economic extremism, in the tory leadership campaign). Just found details here:

https://labourlist.org/2022/07/starmer-on-ten-leadership-pledges-the-financial-situation-has-changed/

There's not been an election manifesto yet because there's no election called as it stands. You're right though that it's oddly premature to be judging Starmer's performance on them, given he's currently out of power.

Thanks for that and agree about how quickly things can change.  What would be right today isn't necessarily what would be right tomorrow.

Sure the principles shouldn't change but how to achieve them might do which I feel is something that gets lost on here sometimes.

[reddebs]

Well it didn't take long for the nasty sh*t. Let's see if we're on the same side of the fence...#more in common 
T'other day Rachel Reeves The Lady who sits to Sir Kiers Right...obviously ( not to be confused with the lady who sit's to his Left, who btw is looking a bit pissed since her boyfriend got ditched by TLP)
Appeared to be channelling Frottage with her comments about assylum seekers and how the Tory's need to speed up the deportations...
I don't condone Tory policies on assylum seekers so obviously I don't think they should speed up the deportations either.
Needless to say I dont agree with her blowing dog whistles either.
What are your thoughts on the matter ?

See this type of thing is what puts me and probably a lot of other people off politics as it comes across as confusingly childlike.

I haven't a freaking clue what it's saying, who or what its about and probably more importantly why does the comment need to be so snidily nasty and personal.

[Kenny's Jacket]

See this type of thing is what puts me and probably a lot of other people off politics as it comes across as confusingly childlike.

I haven't a freaking clue what it's saying, who or what its about and probably more importantly why does the comment need to be so snidily nasty and personal.

Whjat hes saying is that Rachel Reeves has told the Tories to deport asylum seekers more efficiently.  Hes also made a comment that Angela Rayner looks pissed off since her boyfriend Sam Tarry got sacked.

If Im being kind I would conclude Reeves said she wanted failed asylum seekers deported more quickly

https://www.indy100.com/politics/rachel-reeves-diane-abbott-immigration

[reddebs]

Whjat hes saying is that Rachel Reeves has told the Tories to deport asylum seekers more efficiently.  Hes also made a comment that Angela Rayner looks pissed off since her boyfriend Sam Tarry got sacked.

If Im being kind I would conclude Reeves said she wanted failed asylum seekers deported more quickly

https://www.indy100.com/politics/rachel-reeves-diane-abbott-immigration

Ah ok it should have been worded better and the boyfriend thing is still a primary school childish assumption to comment on her looking glum because of it.

Jesus no wonder good people don't want to go into politics if that's typical of how the electorate look at stuff.

Anyway I'm out cos this shit winds me up too much and why I avoid politics whenever possible

[Kenny's Jacket]

Ah ok it should have been worded better and the boyfriend thing is still a primary school childish assumption to comment on her looking glum because of it.

Jesus no wonder good people don't want to go into politics if that's typical of how the electorate look at stuff.

Anyway I'm out cos this shit winds me up too much and why I avoid politics whenever possible

Angela Rayner always looks like that, its just her resting face.

Dont go missing like you did a few months ago. 

[reddebs]

Angela Rayner always looks like that, its just her resting face.

Dont go missing like you did a few months ago. 

I won't mate 👍

[So… Howard Philips]

I won't mate 👍

Just as long as your boiler is working.

Off to watch the match. Bit late I know just hope we haven’t conceded already.

[bigbonedrawky]

See this type of thing is what puts me and probably a lot of other people off politics as it comes across as confusingly childlike.

I haven't a freaking clue what it's saying, who or what its about and probably more importantly why does the comment need to be so snidily nasty and personal.

Ah ok it should have been worded better and the boyfriend thing is still a primary school childish assumption to comment on her looking glum because of it.

Jesus no wonder good people don't want to go into politics if that's typical of how the electorate look at stuff.

Anyway I'm out cos this shit winds me up too much and why I avoid politics whenever possible

Hi debs sorry you feel this way most of the posters on here like Kenny & Tepid are well versed in what going on in The Labour Party.
To clear a few things up:
Since about 2015 TLP has been at war with itself (Left wing versus Right wing) and it's been as nasty and toxic as it can get.
Frottage = Nigel f arrage who I'm sure wholeheartedly agrees with what Rachel Reeves (Right wing) is saying.
I have nothing against Angela Raynor (Left wing) however I couldn't help noticing that while the entire front bench and the rest of the Labour MP's where laughing and joking at the demise of Lizz Truss and co.
Angela Raynor was looking sad, unhappy or even pissed off. A quick google tells me why this might be so...
Another casualty in this continuing fight between Left v Right and she's been left in what I think you'd agree is a difficult position. Although it could be just her resting face or she likes the Jack Dee style of comedy.
The cynic in me tells me some MPs on the right of the party would like her to quit the frontbench in solidarity with her boyfriend.
 
I think you asked earlier as to what promise has Sir Kier broken in the leadership election...He promised to unite the party and end the uncivil war. IMHO he has failed miserably and has needlessly aggravated the situation.
 
As for my style of posting I'm from the 1970s and grew up in 80s Yorkshire where 'sticks and stones' is a common mantra and I have a 'Water off a Ducks back' attitude to any insult or abuse aimed at me, especially on the Internet  (this is seen as a challenge to some) 
As for my grammer... Ingurlish may aswell be my second language, such is my edjukation.

I'm not sure if you thought I was been nasty or personal to Tepid but I will say that despite our differences of opinion on political matters he seems like a nice guy and I'd gladly buy him a pint in a pub ( he'd probably prefer a wine bar though )
Oh and should I find myself arguing with him late into the night I'd tell him to. "get to bed you've got School in the morning"...   

Whatever you do Debs don't quit the thread or forum and don't take anything I say too seriously.
Life is too short and if you don't laugh you'll cry.

[Dr. Beaker]

Whatever you do Debs don't quit the thread or forum and don't take anything I say too seriously.
Life is too short and if you don't laugh you'll cry.

As a pissed-up Irishman once said to me in the pub,"Life is far too important to be taken seriously".

[TepidT2O]

An interesting read I think

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rachel-reeves-is-convincing-the-city-they-can-bank-on-her-tl5lnx5pz

Canary Wharf in east London is not a traditional Labour stronghold. But in early December, hundreds of business leaders paying almost £600 a head will cram into a venue amid the gleaming skyscrapers to take in keynote speeches from Sir Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves and the shadow business secretary Jonathan Reynolds.

Now, as the Conservatives descend into fresh bloodletting after the collapse of Liz Truss’s chaotic premiership and a 1997-style sea change no longer seems impossible, City bosses are the ones doing the wooing. Recent visitors to Reeves’s Westminster office include Mark Tucker, the chairman of HSBC, and Alison Rose, the chief executive of NatWest. Next month, before the Canary Wharf event, Reeves and Starmer are due to hold a more exclusive drinks party in central London for senior business figures.

“A lot has changed,” Reeves said. “A year ago, we had to get people to organise things for us. It wasn’t easy. Now, especially after conference, we’re just being asked to come and see so many different people — and everyone wants to host things for us.”

The Conservatives were drifting apart from big business long before Truss’s disastrous £45 billion tax-cutting mini-budget. The 2016 Brexit vote prompted a change in the party’s attitude towards multinational companies best summed up by Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson’s infamous “f*** business” comment. Since then, its donor base has become increasingly skewed towards hedge fund tycoons and private entrepreneurs — typically believers in Brexit and liberal economics. The fiasco of Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng’s attempted low-tax revolution further alienated all but the most loyal supporters. Many business leaders privately said they were embarrassed by Kwarteng’s ploy to drop the 45p top rate of income tax, which they saw as crass and divisive.

Labour has been trying to move into the middle ground vacated by the Tories — and the 43-year-old MP for Leeds West has been central to its efforts. Reeves, who did work experience in Gordon Brown’s Treasury then started her career at the Bank’s Japan desk, has come to be seen as an unflashy but credible contender for No 11. She is one half of a Westminster power couple: her husband, Nick Joicey, a senior civil servant in the Department for Work and Pensions, was appointed head of policy at the powerful Cabinet Office economic and domestic affairs secretariat under Truss.


“She’s a very bright, very nice woman who knows what she’s doing,” said one FTSE 100 chairman. “She’s got a very clear view on the fiscal disciplines that Labour would apply. She’s told people that she’s met over 400 business leaders in the past year — and I believe that, because I keep meeting people who have met her and have been very impressed with her, notwithstanding the fact they’re lifelong Conservative voters.”

One such card-carrying Tory businessman said: “She’s not the finished article, in the sense that she’s not got that much experience. But she’s sensible and sound, and she’s got that Bank of England training, which actually means she wouldn’t blunder into the sort of terrible mistakes that Kwasi did.”

Since taking on the role last May, Reeves has deployed an effective opposition tactic: listening. Flagship policies, such as plans to reform business rates and make the widely loathed apprenticeship levy more flexible, reflect longstanding irritations in the business community. “Those are two of the biggest asks where Labour have A, listened, and B, shown willing,” said a boss who engaged with the party on both. “[Whereas] the Tories already have pre-formulated views about markets and business, tied up with political ideology. Therefore they very rarely listen or seek to learn something new.”

There is still an element of caution over Labour in the City and industry, however. Some of Reeves’s proposals remain vague. She has said she would soften the impact of business rates in the short term by shifting more of the burden to tech giants, but has not yet clarified how she would eventually scrap the £31 billion tax on commercial property occupiers and replace it with a new system. Plans to spend £28 billion a year on green infrastructure such as gigafactories for electric car batteries are similarly light on detail.

The CBI started what it has internally called “Project Labour” this month. With a change of government now on the cards in the next two years, the business lobby group has asked its analysts to pull apart Labour’s policies and challenge them more rigorously.

Then there is the question of what Labour would do to plug the hole in the public finances, estimated at up to £40 billion despite Jeremy C*nt’s near-complete reversal of Trussonomics. The chancellor is reported to be considering extending the windfall tax on North Sea oil and gas producers and charging banks more when corporation tax rises.

Labour would undo Truss’s easing of stamp duty, which Hunt is keeping. Labour would end the non-dom tax perk, the favourable treatment of private equity gains and VAT relief on private school fees. Together those measures might raise close to £7 billion. That could still leave tens of billions of pounds to be found either from more taxes or public spending cuts.

Reeves backs an extension of the energy windfall tax but said she was not sure about taxing banks above the imminent 25 per cent rate of corporation tax. Keeping the current 8 per cent surcharge paid by lenders would give them a total tax rate of 33 per cent. “I’d like to look at the evidence, because what I don’t want to do is make Britain less competitive compared to our global counterparts,” she said.

On spending cuts, Reeves said she would “drive value in public services and get savings” by cracking down on wasteful spending, but added: “I would not preside over another period of austerity. Last time it killed off economic growth and didn’t even get our deficit down.”

She claimed there was low-hanging fruit to be had through removing “the Tory premium on the cost of government borrowing” and making Britain “a safe place to invest again”. But Reeves refused to comment further on how Labour would close the gap, saying it was “just not possible” to do so until the independent Office for Budget Responsibility forecast for the public finances is published this week.

Whatever her eventual plans, there will be none of the friction displayed by Johnson and Rishi Sunak or Tony Blair and Brown. In fact, Starmer had intended to appoint Reeves as his first chancellor in 2019, but opted for the lower-wattage Anneliese Dodds in a concession to the soft left. He soon came to regret the decision. After last spring’s local elections, he acted on his original instincts but carried out the resulting reshuffle so poorly — blindsiding his deputy Angela Rayner by stripping her of the party chairmanship — that Reeves’s appointment was lost amid the noise.

Since then Starmer has had a team he regards as settled. A source said: “There is no doubt: if Keir gets into No 10, Rachel will be in No 11.” Another said: “To understand the relationship you have to understand what they value — like a lot of politicians, [Starmer and Reeves] both surround themselves professionally with people a bit like them: people who work hard, are bright, no bullshitters. If you don’t fit that, you won’t last.”


Both are consciously non-ideological and cautious. They are averse to policies carrying that staple word of the Ed Miliband and Corbyn eras — radical. An ally said that Miliband’s book Go Big: How to Fix Our World, published last year, was the antithesis of their language and tone with regard to the economy. Both Starmer and Reeves are haunted by historic perceptions of the Labour brand: even with the party trusted by 32 per cent of voters to manage the economy — double the Tories on 15 per cent — there is no complacency.

Yet even with Starmer and Reeves presenting a reasonable face, some business leaders are concerned about others in the shadow cabinet — in particular Miliband, who proposed a mansion tax in 2014 when he was Labour leader. There is also nervousness over the influence of powerful union backers such as Unite, and Labour’s ambivalent position on strikes. Rayner told last month’s party conference that Labour would scrap anti-union laws and “always be on the side of working people”.

“Business is cautious because no one’s quite sure where they are on the transformation of the party,” said another FTSE 100 chairman. “You look at all the stuff that’s going on with unions in the background. It feels like they’re having to work very hard to control people not to dive in. The question is, if they were in power, would those controls come off?”

Some say Rayner would keep a lid on things as a John Prescott figure for the 2020s: she left school after becoming pregnant aged 16, worked as a trade union representative and is the personification of Labour’s union heritage. Others are less sure. It is the private view of one source with Starmer’s ear that Rayner should not be deputy prime minister if and when the time comes.

The bookshelves in Reeves’s Westminster office give a clear sense of her centre-left politics. Gordon Brown sits alongside Bill Gates. On her desk are works by Mary Marshall, one of the first women to study economics at Cambridge, and Joan Robinson, another Cambridge economist, whose thinking on labour markets laid the groundwork for the minimum wage.

There is also a volume of economic and political theory by Paul Mason, the former Channel 4 economist and adviser to McDonnell who is seeking the Labour nomination in Sheffield Central. Gone, though, are the days when people like Mason had the ear of Labour’s shadow chancellor.

[Drinks Sangria]

Cheers for posting that, Tepid.

That’s likely more significant than it seems on the face of it.

[PaulF]

Nice read tepid .
I can see now why CBI is so hated. It's clearly pro Tory rather than pro business!

[Red Beret]

Wouldn't it be great if, after Labour got in, they ordered an enquiry into the state sponsored football clubs, and especially investigated the manner of the Newcastle/Saudi takeover?

Imagine if we could pass a law ordering these nations to divest themselves of their sportswashing assets? Unlikely I know, but we can dream!

[Nobby Reserve]

An interesting read I think

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rachel-reeves-is-convincing-the-city-they-can-bank-on-her-tl5lnx5pz

Whilst recognising that the last thing a Labour government needs is shysters from City trying to destabilise it*, my instinctive reaction to hearing that 'the City' is more supportive of Labour policy is that the Labour policy isn't likely to be something I would support, as the interests of 'the City' will always be the antithesis to the interests of ordinary people.

* I'll likely bring this up elsewhere in more detail sometime but, whilst we were all laughing at the economic chaos caused by the Truss/Kami-Kwarsi 'mini budget' following the reaction from 'the City', there is a more sinister aspect here that has been ignored. And that is that unelected, very wealthy (or managing the money of very wealthy people), shadowy shysters have demonstrated their power to destabilise and ultimately topple a democratically-elected government if it feels their policies are not in their interests. We chuckled because it was a response to Tory economic incompetence, and boosts the chance of them losing the next GE. But what if that sort of City reaction was the response to a Labour budget that sought to rebalance the economy and tax system much more in favour of ordinary people and target the very wealthy in a redistributive push? I'm thinking bring most Capital Gains Tax rates in line with income tax (it's a massive loophole, especially abused by private equity parasites); destroying the 'secrecy jurisdiction' status of the British Overseas Territories/Crown Dependencies; severely curtailing the use of Trusts by the wealthy to avoid tax (not least to avoid Inheritance Tax); bringing in a 'Robin Hood' financial transactions tax; etc.

[thaddeus]

Whilst recognising that the last thing a Labour government needs is shysters from City trying to destabilise it*, my instinctive reaction to hearing that 'the City' is more supportive of Labour policy is that the Labour policy isn't likely to be something I would support, as the interests of 'the City' will always be the antithesis to the interests of ordinary people.

* I'll likely bring this up elsewhere in more detail sometime but, whilst we were all laughing at the economic chaos caused by the Truss/Kami-Kwarsi 'mini budget' following the reaction from 'the City', there is a more sinister aspect here that has been ignored. And that is that unelected, very wealthy (or managing the money of very wealthy people), shadowy shysters have demonstrated their power to destabilise and ultimately topple a democratically-elected government if it feels their policies are not in their interests. We chuckled because it was a response to Tory economic incompetence, and boosts the chance of them losing the next GE. But what if that sort of City reaction was the response to a Labour budget that sought to rebalance the economy and tax system much more in favour of ordinary people and target the very wealthy in a redistributive push? I'm thinking bring most Capital Gains Tax rates in line with income tax (it's a massive loophole, especially abused by private equity parasites); destroying the 'secrecy jurisdiction' status of the British Overseas Territories/Crown Dependencies; severely curtailing the use of Trusts by the wealthy to avoid tax (not least to avoid Inheritance Tax); bringing in a 'Robin Hood' financial transactions tax; etc.

I'm maybe oversimplifying it but the reaction seemed to be a simpler one than nuanced policy of tax and redistribution.  The budget announcements and subsequent doubling down made it very clear that the UK would not be raising sufficient tax income to cover rolling tax expenditure.  Talk of extra growth in three years' time was never going to hold water.  Speculators jumped on the weakness and it snowballed.

Theoretically 'the city' could coordinate and turn against the UK because of the sort of policies you outlined that Labour may introduce.  I think that's very unlikely though as they all have their own vested interests.

If Labour were to announce massive spending increases without comparable tax rises then they'd be shredded similarly to Truss/Kwarteng.  Starmer and Reeves have always been clear that their budget is fully costed so whilst it may cause disgruntlement amongst those in the crosshairs I don't see it being something 'the city' could effectively overrule by destabilisation.  Don't forget many city traders were due a nice kickback from the mini-budget!

[oldfordie]

Whilst recognising that the last thing a Labour government needs is shysters from City trying to destabilise it*, my instinctive reaction to hearing that 'the City' is more supportive of Labour policy is that the Labour policy isn't likely to be something I would support, as the interests of 'the City' will always be the antithesis to the interests of ordinary people.

* I'll likely bring this up elsewhere in more detail sometime but, whilst we were all laughing at the economic chaos caused by the Truss/Kami-Kwarsi 'mini budget' following the reaction from 'the City', there is a more sinister aspect here that has been ignored. And that is that unelected, very wealthy (or managing the money of very wealthy people), shadowy shysters have demonstrated their power to destabilise and ultimately topple a democratically-elected government if it feels their policies are not in their interests. We chuckled because it was a response to Tory economic incompetence, and boosts the chance of them losing the next GE. But what if that sort of City reaction was the response to a Labour budget that sought to rebalance the economy and tax system much more in favour of ordinary people and target the very wealthy in a redistributive push? I'm thinking bring most Capital Gains Tax rates in line with income tax (it's a massive loophole, especially abused by private equity parasites); destroying the 'secrecy jurisdiction' status of the British Overseas Territories/Crown Dependencies; severely curtailing the use of Trusts by the wealthy to avoid tax (not least to avoid Inheritance Tax); bringing in a 'Robin Hood' financial transactions tax; etc.

I don't think many of us were laughing at the reaction to Kwartengs budget. got to the point were I had to turn off the news as the news got worse and worse.
I suppose it boils down to how you look at it. the difference between the 70s/80s and 90s is Unions and management stopped looking at each other as enemys.
We should not be looking at Business as the enemy, Labour is right to work with businesses. isn't that what remaining in the EU is all about, it doesn't mean your working against the interests of the working man, it's the bosses who exploit we need to clamp down on.
The CBI has recognised that the Torys have moved away from working with business, they are now looking after the super rich as they back them personally financially.
Clamping down on tax avoidance is another matter. going after the super rich and the big corporations is another matter. nothing to do with working with buisness to help them thrive.

[classycarra]

Good ad popped up while I was searching Twitter

Nice bit of Vivaldi (I think) - and a brief reminder that the new PM isn't new
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1584863492439306240

Was desperately searching for a glimmer of hope in cabinet sackings, to see if/when I can say "Coffey to go" in our Teams chat at work

[Black Bull Nova]

This thread does not get used as much as it should, a lot of discussion about Labour appears in the tory thread. I would say we have two years to discuss how Labour is going to plan for the future rather than just react to the current circus that runs the country. The Tories are now focused on winning the election and will do everything in their power to do so, including stitching up any administration that is not them after the election. I think this thread should focus on the way Labour behaves in the run up to the election and, remember, it's hard for Labour to win elections without pretending to be moderate and even a little right wing in the eyes of some so we maybe need to give a little slack unless we want this crowd for the next 7 years.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Since about 2015 TLP has been at war with itself (Left wing versus Right wing) and it's been as nasty and toxic as it can get.

I'd say it's more a case of the 'left' wing being at war with everyone not as 'left' wing as they are.

As I've said in the other thread, the idea of labelling people that are leftist and centrist as 'right wing' is bonkers.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

(Moved from the Tory thread to here)

It's not the 1980s who in 2020s think miners dockers & steelworkers are representative of Labour voters ?
It seems to me your picking a weak argument in order to bolster your point.
The biggest sector by far is wholesale/retail (which does include lots of NMW warehouse workers though ) but overall approx a third of those workers are part time and a third of those PT workers dont get NMW as they are under age.
When it comes to extra hours for the Adult NMW workers... Roughly speaking Employers can get 3 under 21s ( Who are often over qualified A level, degree etc ) or 4 16 year olds for the price of 2 Adults on NMW .
Remember the saying "you get an 'ology' you're a scientist" You get an 'ology' know, chances are you're a retail worker. 

In short their current situation and their future is bleak and it's them that should be viewed as the traditional labour voters and lets face it the last time these type of people engaged with TLP, via the £3 membership and things like Momentum ...
They got told to fuck off and were called all sorts of names by the right wing guardians in TLP.

Then you have the construction and transport sectors, well we all know the general attitude towards  "White Van Man" don't we .
My Son works in construction and he drives a White Van and yes he thinks 'they're all the same' So do feel free to call him a c*nt, like good Labour voters are supposed to...
"Privatise everything " Well your boy Streeting want's to privatise even more of the NHS...

 I agree TLP is supposed to be a broad church and there will be a lot of people inclined to vote Labour. given the entire shitshow that is the current Gov but what other choice do they have ?
However I've learned quite a lot of things about TLP these last few years (you could say it's like working in a pork pie factory ) one of the things I've learned  is to never underestimate the power of TLP to repel people who would otherwise vote Labour.   

PS
I'm not directing my ire at you Andy I'm just using your quotes as a vehicle to express my opinions
YNWA 

There are plenty (The majority I’d say) that don’t fit the ‘traditional’ Labour Voter mold, nor the current idea of a ‘Labour Voter’ - there are plenty like myself from poor, working-class backgrounds that have worked all our lives and made of our lives what we can. We are no longer poor and no longer ‘working class’ but still hold social ideals and social values and want a better country for everyone. Again it’s traditional to assume that those that have ‘got on’ immediately become right-wing Tory voters - but this is what Thatcher and her ilk want you to believe that there is ‘no such thing as society’

Then you do have your traditional Labour voters and you do have those that you mention that have been let down by their country and the system that is inherent in it.

My point is that trying to pigeonhole people with this is a futile, pointless task that doesn’t even bear any analysis at any level.

We have seen poor ‘working class’ people that have and will vote Tory all their lives and read the S*n with gay abandon and seem to hate other ‘working class’ people that don’t share their selfish drive to make it all about themselves to the detriment of others.

Chucking about words like ‘right wing’ at those that are very, very clearly not ‘right wing’ is also pointless, but actually helps the Tories out I think for those that aren’t that engaged. If they can be convinced that ‘they are all the same’ then this always benefits the Conservative Party. And the Conservative Party only cares about those that can and do benefit their goals and aims and sponsers and masters.

Using words like ‘your boy’ and ‘your man’ and other things like this doesn’t even deserve a response. This kind of phrasing in the context it’s usually used is pretty mean-spirited, untrue and usually downright nasty. It seems there are a large number of those that engage in politics that expects everyone to agree to and ‘sign up’ with the doctrine and not just a doctrine, but one that exactly matches the expected ideals. If someone varies from this or has slightly differing opinions or a slightly differing world view then they are to be targeted and labelled somewhere to the right of the Nazi Death Squads or something. Always confuses me how people can opine marvellously and in detail about a subject as complicated as politics and yet within the same breath utter things that a 5 year old would be embarrased saying, but each to their own.

I haven’t called anyone a c*nt that I’m aware of - apart from the shitstains - from all parties and all sides of the left/right divide that fucked us all with Brexit.

I'd say that there are elements in the Labour Party that fling things about and accuse others of stuff that they routinely do, but again, I suppose that's down to the 'us and them' ideas - in that if you aren't us then you definately are 'them'

[Andy @ Allerton!]

(Moved from the Tory thread to here - Blackbull Nova makes a good point!)

I said why I wanted them as possible Labour leaders ahead of the likes of Streeting. Also I can assure you that Lammy and Streeting wouldnt be so fondly liked in the general public.

Fair enough, but the point I'm making is that Labour is already (supposed to be) a broad Church and on top of that, plenty of people that are outside the current Labour 'voting set' may well be inclined to vote Labour.

All these people should be encouraged to vote Labour because what is Labour other than a Party that should be there to help the majority and to do good for the country (Rather than the Tories who are here to fuck shit up, privatise everything and get backhanders to do what their masters bid?)

[thaddeus]

This thread does not get used as much as it should, a lot of discussion about Labour appears in the tory thread. I would say we have two years to discuss how Labour is going to plan for the future rather than just react to the current circus that runs the country. The Tories are now focused on winning the election and will do everything in their power to do so, including stitching up any administration that is not them after the election. I think this thread should focus on the way Labour behaves in the run up to the election and, remember, it's hard for Labour to win elections without pretending to be moderate and even a little right wing in the eyes of some so we maybe need to give a little slack unless we want this crowd for the next 7 years.

(More seriously, thanks for returning attention to this thread!  The Tories get away with enough bollocks as it is without Labour conversations casting further shade on them in here)

[oldfordie]

I think this is a good example of the problems Labour face from the left letting ideology dictate their decisions.
Attack is Labours shadow health minister Streeting is in favour of privatising parts of the NHS when he has said nothing of the sort. he is talking about solving a a serious problem nobody can dispute. inheriting a massive backlog in the NHS waiting list.

 So whose view should Labour support, whose view will the public respect, the ones who tell them sorry paying for private treatment goes against my ideology so you will have to sit and suffer in agony for years until your top of the waiting list or the ones who say allowing you to wait in agony for years is unacceptable and we will do something about it even if that means sending you for private treatment so people don't have to suffer, so we can get that waiting list time down and run a efficient NHS so people aren't forced to pay for private treatment.

LBC on Twitter: "I will use private healthcare to bring down NHS waiting lists if I'm the next Health Secretary, says Wes Streeting. @wesstreeting https://t.co/rR5cO8ni6q" / Twitter