Jump to content

Glasto politics: Non covid news


zahidf
 Share

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Do you have specific Corbyn era policies in mind which would be beyond the publics acceptance?

promising the world on a stick while saying only a small number would have to pay extra taxes.

You can take loads of different angles on that for why the public rejected it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

promising the world on a stick while saying only a small number would have to pay extra taxes.

You can take loads of different angles on that for why the public rejected it. 

Aha yes - bringing % gdp public spending in line your average european state - taking failing privately owned state sponsored rackets in rail and water into public ownership - like much of europe.

Weird how much centrists love europe but see moderate european social democratic economic policies as looney left and vote for politicians that would sooner see us aligned with america.

And yes a large increase in spending without a corresponding increase in taxes - a little bit like whats happening right now.

The public rejected it because their grasp of economics is taught to them by the liberal establishment for whom neoclassical, free market economics is the accepted dogma.

The dominance of that one, defunct school of thought is not reflected in academic economics (at least not in recent decades).

So then you have to ask yourself who does it suit to maintain this increasingly discredited theory as the reference point for all policy decisions? The beneficiaries- the liberal establishment- the haves - the centrist dads - the parliamentary labour party in all their inglorious Oxbridge PPE - ministers aide - MP - non executive director of virgin health - house of lords career trajectories 

You have to win the argument. To do that you have to oppose it. I hope Starmer does that today and builds on Corbyn’s legacy.

Lets see.

Edited by mattiloy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

The public rejected it because their grasp of economics is taught to them by the liberal establishment for whom neoclassical, free market economics is the accepted dogma.

That's just it though, the public are right. Why are they right? because they are the ones that are voting. It doesn't matter if they are barking up the wrong tree, because if they are, then get up that tree, get into power and show them the other trees later.

Frick, I'm lost in the woods.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Weird how much centrists love europe but see moderate european social democratic economic policies as looney left and vote for politicians that would sooner see us aligned with america.

lol

I'm simply pointing out that the electorate isn't generally keen to vote itself more taxes, and even less so when they're presented with a plan - a humongous plan for spending - where they don't believe the numbers or the capability of the leadership to deliver it to those numbers.

20 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

The public rejected it because their grasp of economics is taught to them by the liberal establishment for whom neoclassical, free market economics is the accepted dogma.

I know, isn't it just terrible that the electorate is all wrong for your socialist dream? 

Now you've realised that, what are you going to do about it? Double down on your fantasies or wake up to the real world?

21 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

So then you have to ask yourself who does it suit to maintain this increasingly discredited theory as the reference point for all policy decisions?

and who does it suit to pretend it's not a reference point? The rest of the world isn't queuing up to give us free stuff. Think about it!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, hfuhruhurr said:

That's just it though, the public are right. Why are they right? because they are the ones that are voting. It doesn't matter if they are barking up the wrong tree, because if they are, then get up that tree, get into power and show them the other trees later.

Frick, I'm lost in the woods.

Campaign for the centre ground then move left once in power and you can frame the narrative better. This is pretty basic stuff and what Cameron/Johnson did extremely effectively (obviously moving right rather than left).

 

Part of the reason Corbyn failed as spectacularly as he did was it was too easy for the tory party and press to point to McD getting out Mao's book or Corbyn's language and say same old 80s militant socialists. To get the policies across you need to present them in a palatable way to the general public and unfortunately that means presenting them as centrist mainstream ideas and shagging flags. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

All people have seen is Starmer talking alone to a camera...kind of looks a bit of a lone voice...need to see him at a conference or on an election campaign talking infront of actual people.

he needs to get the shadow cabinet in front of the camera more often too. Building the trust for govt needs the public to get to know the whole team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting speech, wonder how people will take it. I also wonder if there was scope for criticising the gov on all the cronyism contracts, alongside the incompetency angle. I think there is scope to shift the whole "metropolitan liberal elite" thing to a "Torys handing out million pound contracts to their elite mates" thing. 

Edited by Haan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, topmarksbri said:

Campaign for the centre ground then move left once in power and you can frame the narrative better. This is pretty basic stuff and what Cameron/Johnson did extremely effectively (obviously moving right rather than left).

 

Part of the reason Corbyn failed as spectacularly as he did was it was too easy for the tory party and press to point to McD getting out Mao's book or Corbyn's language and say same old 80s militant socialists. To get the policies across you need to present them in a palatable way to the general public and unfortunately that means presenting them as centrist mainstream ideas and shagging flags. 

Agree on that point. Corbyn and co had too many daft skeletons in the closet. Annoying that the right gets away with it. The media even lets them off the hook for actual rape (mark francois). But still.

Trouble is, Blair campaigned centre left and but in government was at least just a centrist some would say even centre right, certainly in some policy areas.

Blairism also attracted a lot of centrist MPs and that is a huge legacy issue today. The PLP does not reflect the membership and so many dull, blairite former aides parachuted into safe seats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

putting labour against any future post covid austerity.

Definitely good to get ahead of any austerity. I thought it was a strong speech, he did a good job on setting out what they would be doing directly now and also a bit more for the long term. I would’ve liked to have seen more detailed policy but that can come in time and this speech was about setting the picture for how things can’t go back to how they were. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Trouble is, Blair campaigned centre left and but in government was at least just a centrist some would say even centre right, certainly in some policy areas.

 

I get that and the reticence to trust Starmer not to do the same, but feels a bit like we don't have much of any other choice. If Starmer got hit by lightening tomorrow and tragically killed who'd be your choice of leader? I think RLB as designated heir to JC/JMcD would run into the same issues they both did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

lol

I'm simply pointing out that the electorate isn't generally keen to vote itself more taxes, and even less so when they're presented with a plan - a humongous plan for spending - where they don't believe the numbers or the capability of the leadership to deliver it to those numbers.

I know, isn't it just terrible that the electorate is all wrong for your socialist dream? 

Now you've realised that, what are you going to do about it? Double down on your fantasies or wake up to the real world?

and who does it suit to pretend it's not a reference point? The rest of the world isn't queuing up to give us free stuff. Think about it!

 

 

The electorate has to come around eventually because neoclassical economics doesnt work. 

Or it won’t and the UK will get shitter and shitter until it breaks up. Then independent Scotland, United Ireland and indendent Wales will all do much better than an England still in revery to neoclassical economics and at some point, maybe, one day people will cop on that neither tories or blairites have their best interests at heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, topmarksbri said:

I get that and the reticence to trust Starmer not to do the same, but feels a bit like we don't have much of any other choice. If Starmer got hit by lightening tomorrow and tragically killed who'd be your choice of leader? I think RLB as designated heir to JC/JMcD would run into the same issues they both did. 

Agreed. Its shit. There is a dearth of talent in the party.
But I’ll need more from him than the platitudes that he just espoused to reverse my apathy. And I’m sure many feel the same.

My score for his speech 4/10 - well spoken, light on content, nothing radical, not much Imagination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

Definitely good to get ahead of any austerity. I thought it was a strong speech, he did a good job on setting out what they would be doing directly now and also a bit more for the long term. I would’ve liked to have seen more detailed policy but that can come in time and this speech was about setting the picture for how things can’t go back to how they were. 

Yeah framing the austerity argument now seems like a good move, but still need to get the public to grasp that countries budgets work differently from household budgets (one of my fave QT clips) and why there are alternatives to cutting spend. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

The electorate has to come around eventually because neoclassical economics doesnt work. 

you don't believe there's any concept of value? Really?

The system can be temporarily manipulated around that in the short term but a belief in value is always the underpinning idea.

 

2 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Or it won’t and the UK will get shitter and shitter until it breaks up. Then independent Scotland, United Ireland and indendent Wales will all do much better than an England still in revery to neoclassical economics and at some point, maybe, one day people will cop on that neither tories or blairites have their best interests at heart.

I love these sorts of narratives, where (for example) all of the problems of Scotland having to meet the EUs neoliberal entry criteria just disappear into the ether. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, topmarksbri said:

Yeah framing the austerity argument now seems like a good move, but still need to get the public to grasp that countries budgets work differently from household budgets (one of my fave QT clips) and why there are alternatives to cutting spend. 

Absolutely, it’s one of the biggest myths the Tories put on the country to force through public acceptance of austerity that we need to balance the books so to speak. I think Starmers approach today is to challenge austerity but not go to hard on those types of measure to potentially risk scaring the public off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ozanne said:

Absolutely, it’s one of the biggest myths the Tories put on the country to force through public acceptance of austerity that we need to balance the books so to speak

we don't need to balance the books.

But if we don't run a balanced economy overall, there's other ways the world will extract value - by crashing the currency for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

we don't need to balance the books.

But if we don't run a balanced economy overall, there's other ways the world will extract value - by crashing the currency for example.

Very true.

It was more that at the time the Tories were comparing handling the countries finances to that of handling your household finances, which isn’t the way to do it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, fraybentos1 said:

I can't watch atm, can anyone tell me if he has said anything about devolution/ PR/ federalism? Anything in that mould?

No. It was focused on the economy and pretty lightweight on policy. There was something about 100,000 business startup loans distributed across the regions. Which just seems a bit...

Nothing about large scale public works, infrastructure or house building either like the post war period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...