I am bored with the accusation that those from the left criticising Labour do not understand or appreciate that if Labour is to beat the Tories it has to go to where the country is, which is apparently in Tory territory.
First, I do not think the country is in Tory territory. If it was, they would not have done so disastrously or have their worst ever poll ratings. Do I really need to explain to anyone what total failures they are?
Second, I do not accept the other implication claim that Labour has also to appeal to those for whom Reform has appeal. This, for the record, is largely those on lower incomes and with lower educational attainments. They are not moving to Reform for positive reasons. They are doing so precisely because Starmer's Labour has ceased to say anything to them in its pursuit of the supposed ‘wealth creators' who have always prospered as a result of exploitation, including of others. Reform may be selling these people total untruths (I think they are) but when Labour has ceased to represent you then of course you will listen to anyone who will.
In combination these two factors suggest why so many now think Labour is LINO - Labour in name only. To win it has very obviously thought it needed to reinvent itself as a vaguely competent looking Tory Party in the hopeless and unprincipled (in the sense of clueless, and conviction-free) style of David Cameron, and that is exactly what it has done.
I would not have voted for David Cameron, so why on earth should I consider doing so for Keir Starmer?
But the issue goes deeper than this abandonment by Labour of quite literally all it stood for, symbolised by the word inequality appearing just once in its manifesto.
The fact that Labour is - by adopting the Tory's fiscal rule and financial forecasts - promising to continue with austerity is enough to make me criticise them.
Then they have abandoned all pretence at being concerned about climate change. Even Great British Energy is no such thing. It will just be a rather lame private equity fund, as is yet another sop to the City of London, giving them yet more state funds to call upon to promote their private gains.
What that symbolises is Labour's intention to instead predicate everything on growth, which has not happened in any meaningful way since 2016 and which they intend to do nothing to encourage. Their economics on this is illiterate.
Worse than that, their policies are decidedly anti-growth. Take just these four:
- A refusal to reconsider Brexit
- Continuing support for Bank of England independence, and so ruinous interest rates
- The refusal to recognise the importance of migration to this country
- Their desperate denial of free movement of people.
Of course we cannot grow.
Then there is the refusal to consider the needs of this country. It will not:
- Relieve child poverty
- Redistribute income and wealth
- Bring the Bank of England under control to end the tyranny of mortgage and rent rises
- Pay public employees what they are worth
- Invest in education, healthcare, social care and so much more, all of which are collapsing
- Protect the borders of this country from flooding.
Setting out to fail has never been an election pitch, in my opinion. Quite deliberately, that is what Labour is seeking to do.
And by doing so it is a gatekeeper for a far-right government in this country, because that is where people will go when Starmer proves he is no more competent than the last five Tory prime ministers, and may be worse, because at least they tried and he is not even going to do that.
So, do not ask me to stand aside and watch those planning to fail this country seek power without my offering comment. That I will not do.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Progressive Socialism;
Noun [U] Politics
Like socialism, but with added nuclear weapons, and no actual socialism.
Agree. Picked this up today:
The Nuffield Trust said that “the manifestos imply increases [in annual funding for the NHS] between 2024-25 and 2028-29 of 1.5% each year for the Liberal Democrats, 0.9% for the Conservatives and 1.1% for Labour. Both Conservative and Labour proposals would represent a lower level of funding increase than the period of ‘austerity’ between 2010-11 and 2014-15. This would be an unprecedented slowdown in NHS finances and it is inconceivable that it would accompany the dramatic recovery all are promising. This slowdown follows three years of particularly constrained finances.”
So, vote Labour – get 2010 – 2015 style Tory austerity. Labour in favour of hungry children etc..
Does that factor in the £18 billion cuts that are already on the books and Labour is not planning to reverse? Rory Stewart gave an interesting analysis of this when criticising both Labour and Tory manifestos this week. They would have to reverse this to start to stand still.
The country is rejecting neoliberal predatory conservatives.
The last 40 years is evidence that it is a complete failure.
The only people who can’t see it (or pretend they can’t) are the Tories, Labour and mainstream media.
I have already told the Labour door knocker (first of any party in 22 years!) that I cannot vote for them as they are too close to the Tories. If our current MP (Tory safe seat here) loses his seat, then according to the 2019 results, there would be a maximum of 80 Tory MPs in the next parliament. On Friday I took a drive around our local area out of interest, targeting those places where in previous years I have seen multiple posters for said MP. Fields dominated by huge hoardings, streets with many window signs etc. I saw one. One. And for the first time in the same 22 years a neighbour has a Vote Labour sign in the window – unheard of behaviour. I don’t take this to necessarily mean that the current MP won’t be re-elected, or even suffer much of a loss of majority – but outward facing, public support for him or his party definitely is not present. By the way, there was one new field with three hoardings for the current MP, but that field is in a new (and richer) part of the constituency, as our boundaries have changed. Popcorn is in the cupboard.
I drove through several places in rural Hertfordshire this weekend – normally true blue, safe Conservative seats. I saw a total of two Conservative election signs. Many many Lib Dems. No Labour.
Perhaps the Lib Dems have got their ground game together – and perhaps also see these as target seats – but Labour do not seem to be challenging here at all, and the Conservatives seem to have all but given up. It is a similar story with leaflets through the door.
I expect some “shy Tories” will show up on 4 July but their absence on the ground is quite stark.
Business partner was driving through lot of rural England. Noted that usually there are plenty of vote tory signs up all over the place.
This time he saw……………….one.
Tories in for a proper kicking – leaving the question – who will benefit. I don’t think in rural areas it will be reform – might be the Lib-dems. Or possible indys.
There are few signs at all around me
The inevitable farm signs fur the Tories
In town, the LibDems lead the poster race without a doubt
I have seen nothing at all for Labour
There’s a substantial number of people on social media who are suggesting that Starmer, once in office, will do a complete about-face and Labour would suddenly become the party of old instead of LINO. They suggest that there’s some secret Labour plan which can’t be divulged in advance of the general election because it would alert the Tories, implying that this would scupper it.
Deluded or what?
Totally deluded
…recalling R. Nixon, U.S. version, “$ecret Plan” to end Vietnam War, unable be revealed prior election…
Tell them to read “The Starmer Project”.
That’ll show them SKS’s levels of dissimulation, deceit, and ultimately mediocrity.
Why, oh, why are we still presuming growth is the solution, let alone using the dire GDP growth metric ?
It is entirely unsuitable for purpose, as Kuznets himself stated:-
“The welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measure of national income,”
Worse still, we know that conventional growth is unsustainable in both energy and materials consumption.
Decoupling energy consumption from growth metrics is still largely a figment of the imagination.
And…..the Global North is currently still expanding materials consumption, and overshooting sustainable useage by a factor of 4.
Does anyone really believe that opening more and more mines in the Global South to extract the materials needed to produce 1 billion passenger EVs offers a serious long term solution ?
Even in the field of so-called ‘transition’ thinking such mitigation type programmes are often preferred over adaption projects, because these do not generate sufficient profits.
Critics of the left and environmentalism often lay the accusation of utopian thinking, but the real fantasy is a future where corporate capitalism can provide for everyone’s needs within planetary boundaries.
That, in 2024, all that we are being offered in the UK GE is more of the same –
the ” growth, growth, growth,” mantra, will make for an uncomfortable existential prison for our children and grand children.
No wonder the younger age groups despair of the conventional party political offerings.
“the ” growth, growth, growth,” mantra, will make for an uncomfortable existential prison for our children and grand children.”
I’d put it a lot stronger than ‘uncomfortable’!
We’re on the ‘road to ecological hell’ (Pope Francis) – collective suicide by way of ecocide.
My environmentalism isn’t a utopian ideal, it’s an attempt to do a little to help avert a deeply dystopian fate.
“Alas, all too often, the qualities which enable a person to become the head of an organisation are not the qualities which result in the organisation being well led.”
(J. B. Gillies)
LINO has hardly been winning voters over. Look at the YouGov tracker of likelihood to actually vote Labour :
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/likelihood-to-vote-labour-in-the-next-general-election
..which, unlike projected vote share, does not increase as a numerical artefact of erstwhile Tories intending not to vote/don’t knows.
The only discernible increases were shortly after Starmer became leader (i.e. before all the pledge dropping) and following the Truss/Kamikwazi “fiscal event” (however misattributed that was). There have been no increases following the pledge droppings or declarations of fiscal conservatism. If anything, trickles back down.
Even if they intend some about-face once in govt, they’ve hamstrung themselves for next to nothing.
..4…their corporate corrupter$…
I find the Great British Energy promise hard to understand.
Yesterday I watched a video about the G7 conference where leaders were planning to sell all infrastructure including roads, bridges, schools, hospitals to private companies like Blackrock. A representative from Blackrock ,Fink ,was filmed speaking at that conference. Is Labours planned Great British Energy an equivalent scheme? Can anyone enlighten me?
Who knows?
Colonel Smithers & a few others have suggested it is a private equity and hegie facilitation system. I am inclined to agree.
It is a con.
In five years from now we might well be in the same position France us in. Complete disillusionment with extreme centre politics, far right on the rise and the progressive left broken up into many small parties as we can see forming now in the UK. A coalition of the Left is needed to offer an alternative vision to the electorate one which empowers the many not the few.
In my constituency it’s a straight battle between Tory and LibDem, so I need not worry about voting Labour. And one of the most appealing features of the LibDem candidate’s manifesto is where he says he won’t follow the party line if it wouldn’t benefit his constituents.
We all need to vote for the candidate we trust, not for a party. Present parties are mostly out of date and out of ideas.
I am going to put a tomato seed in a bucket of sand – no water – no plant food; like the horticultural equivalent of the Gaza siege! I should fully anticipate that a vigorous plant will emerge and produce bushels of tomatoes… NOT. Behold ‘Growth’ Labour style!
The difference between the Magic Money Tree and the Growth Fairy is that the Magic Money Tree exists, and the Growth Fairy does’nt
[…] Do not ask me to stand aside and watch those planning to fail this country seek power Funding the Future […]
“I do not think the country is in Tory territory. If it was, they would not have done so disastrously or have their worst ever poll ratings. Do I really need to explain to anyone what total failures they are?”
The problem is not that the Conservatives are obviously failures, but that the electorate do not believe they have any responsibility for electing them; indeed that the mess has anything to do with them. The politicians are never going to blame the voter. The problem is that the electorate disassociate what they believe, from the execution of their voting decision. The FPTP voter believes in neoliberalism to the degree they understand it (they don’t, but that is irrelevant). They do not criticise the principles that informed their choice, they blame first the personalties of the politicians in Government for their failures, and now – it is so bad, and impossible to excuse anyone – they blame the Conservative Party as a whole. That is new, but changes nothing. As I keep saying, the electorate who matter in the FPTP system (older, with constituencies skewed to advantage Conservatives, and a large minority that effectively exclude themselves from the process*) know that they are effectively voting for a Single Transferable Party. They claim to be badly spooked by Labour not to defeat Labour, but to ensure that they spook the Labour Party to stay in line, and operate the single Transferable Party.
Boris Johnson in 2019 had an 80 seat majority with 34% of voters onside; and only 24% of the electoral register. Less than one-in-four voted for the Conservatives, but the Government had power to do just about anything; elective dictatorship. The British voter doesn’t care.
We really can’t continue to dress this up. Humans are irrational The believe in contradictions. Only PR will have any effect on this; and voters make it difficult to achieve; and that is only a first step.
I had a labour canvasser at the door today. Given the constituency is going to be a close run thing between tories (incumbent) and labour, I said I would be voting labour whilst holding my nose. I suggested that the future Labour chancellor might wish to read up on MMT and that the household analogy was a myth.
The canvasser said she was a retired director of finance, she knew and understood what I was talking about and assured me that the future labour chancellor also understood; but that “normal people” wouldn’t understand and the media would have a field day with labour if they came out and said anything of the sort…
wasn’t convinced. Time will tell.
Thanks