Labour U Turns Part 164

[selby]

  Add Azhar Ali to the list of back tracking in Rochdale and lost voters there, could be one of the first Islamic independent candidates to stand against them and take a lot of votes with him.

[SydneyRover]

I think Syd is still reeling from the news that Keith has dropped the plan to backdate the windfall tax to January 2022.
Oil and Gas excess profits were to be clawed back, if you remember.

Another one gone!

I was thinking more Mr Shahrar's plight and the way he was treated, oh and the cost.

[albie]

So, after earlier today giving the Rochdale Labour candidate full backing after his remarks were criticised, Keith and Co have now decided to disown him.

Which means that he stays on the ballot for the bye-election, but without Labour Party support and endorsement.

You couldn't make it up.
Who on earth is doing Comms for Team Keith....a less demanding role surely beckons?

[SydneyRover]

I think Syd is still reeling from the news that Keith has dropped the plan to backdate the windfall tax to January 2022.
Oil and Gas excess profits were to be clawed back, if you remember.

Another one gone!

I was thinking more Mr Shahrar's plight and the way he was treated, oh and the cost.

I can see that must have stung a bit Albie, especially with all the chiding surrounding the residual litigation costs from the corbyn era being thrown around

[selby]

  Well if the pull back on oil and gas is true they will just fleece the ones they always have when in power, us, while the companies sail off into the bright new distance of moving their tax liabilities overseas as they have done every time Labour come into power.
  Usually as you get older you realise the never ending circle of the two main parties and tend to move over to the Tory vote after being brought up Labour by a generation who really did pull the country up by its boot laces after the second world war and a party unrecognisable now with their woke agenda and educated idiots in charge of the party.
 Then you get people like Billy and his disciples who never learn and are still 18years old, believing and gobbling down everything they say.

[albie]

It is getting very difficult to understand your posts, Sydney.

I assume you are referring to the inept handling of legal cases initiated by Starmer, in a factional attack.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67023015

This case places Labour on the end of a possible hefty cost settlement, when the value of the action is minimal.

The information contained in the "Labour Leaks" report, of concerted attempts by Labour head office to undermine the previous leadership, is verified and beyond dispute. The Information Commissioner considers that there is no case to answer.

I agree with you that ignoring legal advice to pursue an action without merit is a waste of money, and calls into question Starmer's lack of judgment.
https://skwawkbox.org/2023/04/25/labour-facing-six-figure-legal-bill-after-losses-in-case-against-former-corbyn-staff/

Perhaps you are thinking of the discredited EHRC, which had to retract and settle, after legal action from Bromley and Livingstone;
https://skwawkbox.org/2023/09/15/ehrc-discredits-itself-again-even-as-it-settles-with-livingstone-and-bromley/

At the heart of this is Keith and his top down bullying management style.
There is no sign that he has learned any lessons from these expensive mistakes!

[Herbert Anchovy]

So, after earlier today giving the Rochdale Labour candidate full backing after his remarks were criticised, Keith and Co have now decided to disown him.

Which means that he stays on the ballot for the bye-election, but without Labour Party support and endorsement.

You couldn't make it up.
Who on earth is doing Comms for Team Keith....a less demanding role surely beckons?

I think that the party have made a bit of a mess in this instance. However, it took the Tories 3 years to disown Johnson, so I don't think that they can take the moral high ground.

[Herbert Anchovy]

  Well if the pull back on oil and gas is true they will just fleece the ones they always have when in power, us, while the companies sail off into the bright new distance of moving their tax liabilities overseas as they have done every time Labour come into power.
  Usually as you get older you realise the never ending circle of the two main parties and tend to move over to the Tory vote after being brought up Labour by a generation who really did pull the country up by its boot laces after the second world war and a party unrecognisable now with their woke agenda and educated idiots in charge of the party.
 Then you get people like Billy and his disciples who never learn and are still 18years old, believing and gobbling down everything they say.

I think that this is a very simplistic opinion Selby, though there's probably some truth in there. At the last election I recall speaking with a lifetime Labour voter who was voting Conservative for the first time. When I asked him why he said " I voted Labour when I was younger because I needed them. Now I've retired, I don't need them anymore"!! I was astounded.

As for your claim that companies will leave the UK and take their tax liabilities with them, this is a long held view from when Labour were in power in the 70's and it probably did happen then. However, when Tony Blair came to power in the 90's that didn't happen did it? Indeed, I seem to recall reading that more businesses were moving to the UK as a result of various incentives at this time?

When I travel around the country I just see a very tired, run down and in some aspects desperate country. The current Government don't seem to have any idea (or inclination) to do anything about it despite being in power for 13 years. For all of their faults, I really hope that Labour get in again at the next election, just to hopefully bring some new ideas and energy to the country. I don't think that I've ever seen Britain in such a bad state since the early 80's.

[scawsby steve]

  Well if the pull back on oil and gas is true they will just fleece the ones they always have when in power, us, while the companies sail off into the bright new distance of moving their tax liabilities overseas as they have done every time Labour come into power.
  Usually as you get older you realise the never ending circle of the two main parties and tend to move over to the Tory vote after being brought up Labour by a generation who really did pull the country up by its boot laces after the second world war and a party unrecognisable now with their woke agenda and educated idiots in charge of the party.
 Then you get people like Billy and his disciples who never learn and are still 18years old, believing and gobbling down everything they say.

I think that this is a very simplistic opinion Selby, though there's probably some truth in there. At the last election I recall speaking with a lifetime Labour voter who was voting Conservative for the first time. When I asked him why he said " I voted Labour when I was younger because I needed them. Now I've retired, I don't need them anymore"!! I was astounded.

As for your claim that companies will leave the UK and take their tax liabilities with them, this is a long held view from when Labour were in power in the 70's and it probably did happen then. However, when Tony Blair came to power in the 90's that didn't happen did it? Indeed, I seem to recall reading that more businesses were moving to the UK as a result of various incentives at this time?

When I travel around the country I just see a very tired, run down and in some aspects desperate country. The current Government don't seem to have any idea (or inclination) to do anything about it despite being in power for 13 years. For all of their faults, I really hope that Labour get in again at the next election, just to hopefully bring some new ideas and energy to the country. I don't think that I've ever seen Britain in such a bad state since the early 80's.

Excellent last paragraph, Herbert. However, I think you're going to be disappointed about Labour bringing new ideas and energy to the country. I think they'll be no different to the Tories.

For energy and dynamism, you'd need someone with a similar mindset to Mick Lynch leading the party. It isn't going to happen.

[Bentley Bullet]

Doncaster has had a lot of money spent on improvement, but the overabundance of low-life residents amounts to it being not much more than polishing a turd.

[drfchound]

  Well if the pull back on oil and gas is true they will just fleece the ones they always have when in power, us, while the companies sail off into the bright new distance of moving their tax liabilities overseas as they have done every time Labour come into power.
  Usually as you get older you realise the never ending circle of the two main parties and tend to move over to the Tory vote after being brought up Labour by a generation who really did pull the country up by its boot laces after the second world war and a party unrecognisable now with their woke agenda and educated idiots in charge of the party.
 Then you get people like Billy and his disciples who never learn and are still 18years old, believing and gobbling down everything they say.

I think that this is a very simplistic opinion Selby, though there's probably some truth in there. At the last election I recall speaking with a lifetime Labour voter who was voting Conservative for the first time. When I asked him why he said " I voted Labour when I was younger because I needed them. Now I've retired, I don't need them anymore"!! I was astounded.

As for your claim that companies will leave the UK and take their tax liabilities with them, this is a long held view from when Labour were in power in the 70's and it probably did happen then. However, when Tony Blair came to power in the 90's that didn't happen did it? Indeed, I seem to recall reading that more businesses were moving to the UK as a result of various incentives at this time?

When I travel around the country I just see a very tired, run down and in some aspects desperate country. The current Government don't seem to have any idea (or inclination) to do anything about it despite being in power for 13 years. For all of their faults, I really hope that Labour get in again at the next election, just to hopefully bring some new ideas and energy to the country. I don't think that I've ever seen Britain in such a bad state since the early 80's.

Excellent last paragraph, Herbert. However, I think you're going to be disappointed about Labour bringing new ideas and energy to the country. I think they'll be no different to the Tories.

For energy and dynamism, you'd need someone with a similar mindset to Mick Lynch leading the party. It isn't going to happen.

Excellent last paragraph indeed SS.
As for Labour not changing things much, I agree however the usual apologists will already have the excuses ready to roll out.
Personally I am disappointed that Labour might not change things because I was hoping to see the country returned to its former glory.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Anyone who is really interested in Govt debt could do themselves a favour and read this, from the country's pre-eminent macroeconomics professor.

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2024/02/detoxifying-government-debt-part-1-debt.html?m=1

I think the start of that piece gets to the core of the issue for Labour. Reeves is a highly qualified economist, and she will know that there is no real argument against Labour borrowing a lot for the Green investment that's needed.

But the issue is not what politicians know to be right. It's about what the voters think. And voters have been consistently misinformed on this issue for 15 years by the Tory party, their lackeys in the press, and some appallingly ignorant reporting by so called experts at the BBC and ITV.

They've made people think that Govt debt is automatically a bad thing and must not be increased.[1]

The result? Go to the second page here.
https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/TheTimes_VI_28bn_240208_W.pdf

People think Labour's (now ditched) green policies were a good idea, but unaffordable.

And THAT is the reason why Labour has had to ditch them. Because they cannot allow the Election campaign to be sidetracked into an argument about Govt debt that the public isn't well informed enough to understand.

[1] Everyone in here can now read that link up at the start of this post. Then they will know why the sort of debt we have isn't a dangerous issue for a country. Then maybe politicians will be able to start talking to voters more seriously about these issues, rather than having to respond to ignorance and be accused of having no principles.

[SydneyRover]

Tax cuts are the good apparently, despite services collapsing, if tax cuts are good for the country then massive tax cuts would be even better, no?

Where did I put that lettuce .............

[SydneyRover]

So, after earlier today giving the Rochdale Labour candidate full backing after his remarks were criticised, Keith and Co have now decided to disown him.

Which means that he stays on the ballot for the bye-election, but without Labour Party support and endorsement.

You couldn't make it up.
Who on earth is doing Comms for Team Keith....a less demanding role surely beckons?

this may assist Albie

''Shahrar Ali wins 'gender critical' court battle against Green Party''

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68250071

[albie]

Sydney,
What has this got to do with Labour U-turns?
I am completely lost.

BST,
The issue with Reeves is what she intends to spend green infrastructure money on.
No-one in their right mind would prioritise carbon capture, or think nuclear taking 20 years will reduce energy bills and deal with fuel poverty.

Not a clue!

[SydneyRover]

Sydney,
What has this got to do with Labour U-turns?
I am completely lost.

BST,
The issue with Reeves is what she intends to spend green infrastructure money on.
No-one in their right mind would prioritise carbon capture, or think nuclear taking 20 years will reduce energy bills and deal with fuel poverty.

Not a clue!

After all your criticism of the labour party Albie I thought I'd throw it in the mix, please go through the whole thread and pick out any other comments that are not on topic.

Going back a bit you scoffed when I called you naive (never get that spelling) regarding your big calls about labour, Starmer is doomed, labour is broke stc. How did you go?

This year is where it all comes together and now is the time to launch your bid to stop the tories (without labour of course) let's see your plan.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Anyone who is really interested in Govt debt could do themselves a favour and read this, from the country's pre-eminent macroeconomics professor.

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2024/02/detoxifying-government-debt-part-1-debt.html?m=1

I think the start of that piece gets to the core of the issue for Labour. Reeves is a highly qualified economist, and she will know that there is no real argument against Labour borrowing a lot for the Green investment that's needed.

But the issue is not what politicians know to be right. It's about what the voters think. And voters have been consistently misinformed on this issue for 15 years by the Tory party, their lackeys in the press, and some appallingly ignorant reporting by so called experts at the BBC and ITV.

They've made people think that Govt debt is automatically a bad thing and must not be increased.[1]

The result? Go to the second page here.
https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/TheTimes_VI_28bn_240208_W.pdf

People think Labour's (now ditched) green policies were a good idea, but unaffordable.

And THAT is the reason why Labour has had to ditch them. Because they cannot allow the Election campaign to be sidetracked into an argument about Govt debt that the public isn't well informed enough to understand.

[1] Everyone in here can now read that link up at the start of this post. Then they will know why the sort of debt we have isn't a dangerous issue for a country. Then maybe politicians will be able to start talking to voters more seriously about these issues, rather than having to respond to ignorance and be accused of having no principles.

And this indicates just how badly lacking in understanding of basic data many voters are. It's the USA in this case, but read the whole thread - we aren't much better.

https://x.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1757458670227493264?s=20

So, according to US voters, 59% of the population is white, 41% is Black, 29% is Asian and 27% is Native American.

That's 156% of the population.

And. 50% are Republicans and 51% Democrats.

It really does make you understand what Churchill meant when he said the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute chat with an average voter.

[belton rover]

Perhaps democracy should only be available to the educated.

[drfchound]

What some people don’t seem to understand is that the average person in the street doesn’t care about, or read about, data.
They don’t study politics either.
Lots of them are dyed in the wool one Party or the other, sometimes third or fourth generation.
I would bet that lots of posters on here, myself included, have picked up much of their political knowledge from reading stuff on off topic.
Watch the news bulletins when tv news crews go to the High Street and ask the shoppers who they will be voting for and why.

[Herbert Anchovy]

What some people don’t seem to understand is that the average person in the street doesn’t care about, or read about, data.
They don’t study politics either.
Lots of them are dyed in the wool one Party or the other, sometimes third or fourth generation.
I would bet that lots of posters on here, myself included, have picked up much of their political knowledge from reading stuff on off topic.
Watch the news bulletins when tv news crews go to the High Street and ask the shoppers who they will be voting for and why.

Very true Hound. People vote based on their own experiences. Remember back in the 80's when huge chunks of the country (mainly in the North) were unemployed and really, really struggling but Thatcher still won election after election? People in the South really didn't give a shit about the recession hit north. It's the 'I'm alright Jack' syndrome I guess. I suppose it's one of the reasons why the Tories are so far behind in the polls right now...the living experience of so many people is so bad. It's odd to think that it was only in 2010 that the average inpatient wait time on the NHS was 4 weeks!! What is it now? About 18 weeks??? It's those personal experiences of a failing Government that makes people vote against them. However if you've not experienced that yourself, then most people don't care.

[Bentley Bullet]

Most people aren't interested in the mechanics of politics, they want what they believe in and are soon put off by snake oil salesmen telling them they're stupid for not believing in what they want instead.

Many people drive cars and never lift the bonnet because they are content as long as it is not letting them down. Besides, many of them don't understand the mechanics anyway. They don't need to, they buy what they rely on through experience, often having tried alternatives and learning the hard way.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Perhaps democracy should only be available to the educated.

No. But perhaps people should be aware of the shortcomings in their understanding?

[ravenrover]

I wonder if there is an element of Labour thinking let's win the election 1st and then by how many.
Perhaps policies might change if they have a sizeable majority?

[drfchound]

I wonder if there is an element of Labour thinking let's win the election 1st and then by how many.
Perhaps policies might change if they have a sizeable majority?

IMO Raven there is no doubt that that is the way they are thinking.
Do you think it is cheating the electorate though for them to do that and is it right do do so.
I have seen posts on here saying that there is nothing wrong with it.

[Herbert Anchovy]

I wonder if there is an element of Labour thinking let's win the election 1st and then by how many.
Perhaps policies might change if they have a sizeable majority?

IMO Raven there is no doubt that that is the way they are thinking.
Do you think it is cheating the electorate though for them to do that and is it right do do so.
I have seen posts on here saying that there is nothing wrong with it.

Haven't all governments done this throughout time though? Remember the Tories 1979 election pledge that "Our future lies unequivocally within the European Community" and then almost straight away began to try and withdraw the country from it's obligations? Or how about their 1983 pledge to financially support the UK steel industry then after the election they began supporting the closing of many steel works and encouraging the purchase of cheap steel from abroad? Or how about David Camerons promise to maintain Child Tax Credits in 2015...and then when elected cut them at his first budget? Also, the infamous Nick Clegg opposition to tuition fee's that melted away when he got into bed with the Conservatives!

These are the main ones that I remember, but I'm sure that there are others by both Labour and Tories over the years. I suppose that a Google search would bring up plenty if you're that way inclined!

I suspect that when they get back in power, Labour will begin to rebuild the relationship with the EU (not rejoin) and get closer to the single market. They won't say it outright because it remains too toxic. That can't come soon enough because virtually every company that I work with that exports to Europe has suffered as a result of the Brexit deal.

[Ldr]

I wonder if there is an element of Labour thinking let's win the election 1st and then by how many.
Perhaps policies might change if they have a sizeable majority?

IMO Raven there is no doubt that that is the way they are thinking.
Do you think it is cheating the electorate though for them to do that and is it right do do so.
I have seen posts on here saying that there is nothing wrong with it.

Don’t forget the established convention on here. Tory lie = vile deception, Labour lie = honest mistake made in good faith

[drfchound]

I wonder if there is an element of Labour thinking let's win the election 1st and then by how many.
Perhaps policies might change if they have a sizeable majority?

IMO Raven there is no doubt that that is the way they are thinking.
Do you think it is cheating the electorate though for them to do that and is it right do do so.
I have seen posts on here saying that there is nothing wrong with it.

Haven't all governments done this throughout time though? Remember the Tories 1979 election pledge that "Our future lies unequivocally within the European Community" and then almost straight away began to try and withdraw the country from it's obligations? Or how about their 1983 pledge to financially support the UK steel industry then after the election they began supporting the closing of many steel works and encouraging the purchase of cheap steel from abroad? Or how about David Camerons promise to maintain Child Tax Credits in 2015...and then when elected cut them at his first budget?

These are the main ones that I remember, but I'm sure that there are others by both Labour and Tories over the years.

I suspect that when they get back in power, Labour will begin to rebuild the relationship with the EU (not rejoin) and get closer to the single market. They won't say it outright because it remains too toxic. That can't come soon enough because virtually every company that I work with that exports to Europe has suffered as a result of the Brexit deal.

Oh I have no doubts that those things have happened in the past HA.
In truth I have no recollection of them because I was one of the people who knew Jack sh*t about what went on back then as I didn’t follow politics and the vsc forum didn’t exist back then.
My question to Raven was just a straightforward one, is it cheating the electorate and is it the right thing to do.

[albie]

But the system rests upon the idea of having a mandate.....votes won in support of a slate of policies put before the electorate.

If you choose to deceive folk by misrepresenting your intentions, then you are a fraudster.
Trading Standards would step in if you were selling fake goods, but some think it is OK to sell false promises!

My biggest gripe with Keith is that he stood on a policy platform for leader with a good, but deceptive, manifesto.
Since then he has rejected all those "pledges".
So he has no viable mandate from Labour members, and should stand down.

Once politics becomes a beauty contest between charlatans making offers that they have no intention of backing up, people will turn off from the charade.

It is totally corrosive for any party to offer only opportunistic cynicism.

[Bentley Bullet]

I wonder if there is an element of Labour thinking let's win the election 1st and then by how many.
Perhaps policies might change if they have a sizeable majority?

IMO Raven there is no doubt that that is the way they are thinking.
Do you think it is cheating the electorate though for them to do that and is it right do do so.
I have seen posts on here saying that there is nothing wrong with it.

Haven't all governments done this throughout time though? Remember the Tories 1979 election pledge that "Our future lies unequivocally within the European Community" and then almost straight away began to try and withdraw the country from it's obligations? Or how about their 1983 pledge to financially support the UK steel industry then after the election they began supporting the closing of many steel works and encouraging the purchase of cheap steel from abroad? Or how about David Camerons promise to maintain Child Tax Credits in 2015...and then when elected cut them at his first budget?

These are the main ones that I remember, but I'm sure that there are others by both Labour and Tories over the years.

I suspect that when they get back in power, Labour will begin to rebuild the relationship with the EU (not rejoin) and get closer to the single market. They won't say it outright because it remains too toxic. That can't come soon enough because virtually every company that I work with that exports to Europe has suffered as a result of the Brexit deal.

Oh I have no doubts that those things have happened in the past HA.
In truth I have no recollection of them because I was one of the people who knew Jack sh*t about what went on back then as I didn’t follow politics and the vsc forum didn’t exist back then.
My question to Raven was just a straightforward one, is it cheating the electorate and is it the right thing to do.

Surely, a party that lies about its intentions because it wants the electorate to vote for them is not a fit party to win an election?

[ravenrover]

I wonder if there is an element of Labour thinking let's win the election 1st and then by how many.
Perhaps policies might change if they have a sizeable majority?

IMO Raven there is no doubt that that is the way they are thinking.
Do you think it is cheating the electorate though for them to do that and is it right do do so.
I have seen posts on here saying that there is nothing wrong with it.

If it strays completely away from their manifesto then yes I think it is Hound.
However let's put it in context of the current ruling party, has done with their multi new leader elections and the policies they have since followed nothing to do with their manifesto pledges, is that cheating the electorate?