news & politics:discussion

[Skip997]

Admittedly I don't pay as much attention as I used to, but what are the differences between the current Labour and Tory parties?

They seem very close to me.

[Guest]

Let’s hope this has the same reaction as those Labour attack ads. 

[steviewevie]

5 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

Admittedly I don't pay as much attention as I used to, but what are the differences between the current Labour and Tory parties?

They seem very close to me.

about 20 points.

[hodgey123]

36 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

I just don’t think that’s the case, in fact last week when the bankers bonus stuff came up. I went back to Oct 2023 to see how many people said something when the cap was removed, I posted the story and only you commented on it. Yet last week some people here were up in arms about it when Labour said they weren’t going to reverse it just not angry when the cap was removed. It was the same with the green policies and highlights the problem Labour faces, they get held to higher standards than other parties. 
 

The messaging has only changed from Labour now into how much can be spent on the policy at the start of their term everything else remains the same and that’s because the Tories trashed the economy. 

Labour are held to a different standard because they are the party in opposition aspiring to be the party in charge. When your pitch to be elected is essentially boiling down to 'we are not the Tories' because the progressive, differential policies once proposed keep getting scrapped, they are going to get criticised as they are not offering an alternative to one of the worst governments of our time.

I have not visited this thread for a few months and in that time, Labour have reneged on the green pledge, the bankers bonuses cap, policies regarding trans rights and the nationalisation of water/rail. It is so uninspiring and makes it harder to convince people that politicians are not all the same when Labour are so scared of criticism from right wing voters and press. If you are being criticised by the Daily Mail for your policies, chances are you are doing something right.

[Skip997]

5 minutes ago, hodgey123 said:

they are going to get criticised as they are not offering an alternative to one of the worst governments of our time.

And this is just it

They really aren't

 

Edited February 5, 2024 by Skip997

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

Admittedly I don't pay as much attention as I used to, but what are the differences between the current Labour and Tory parties?

They seem very close to me.

Theres plenty:

Green policies - GB Energy, clean energy by 2030, stopping new oil/gas licenses, warm homes plan, clean air act.

New deal for workers rights

Renationalise railway 

End non-dom tax status

End charitable status for private schools

Equal pay for BAME workers

Mental health focus, see someone within a month

Ambitious targets for sewage discharge to water firms and punishments for exceeding.

This is just naming a few, there are many more.

[hodgey123]

5 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

And this is just it

They really aren't

 

I am vehemently anti-Tory. I will probably still vote for Labour but I really wish there was an alternative.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, hodgey123 said:

Labour are held to a different standard because they are the party in opposition aspiring to be the party in charge. When your pitch to be elected is essentially boiling down to 'we are not the Tories' because the progressive, differential policies once proposed keep getting scrapped, they are going to get criticised as they are not offering an alternative to one of the worst governments of our time.

I have not visited this thread for a few months and in that time, Labour have reneged on the green pledge, the bankers bonuses cap, policies regarding trans rights and the nationalisation of water/rail. It is so uninspiring and makes it harder to convince people that politicians are not all the same when Labour are so scared of criticism from right wing voters and press. If you are being criticised by the Daily Mail for your policies, chances are you are doing something right.

Labour do offer an alternative, it might not be one you like but they do offer one. To claim otherwise is either a lazy take or an obtuse one. 

[hodgey123]

King Charles has cancer. It is not prostate cancer but was discovered during a prostate operation. I assume it is bowel or bladder.

[Skip997]

Just now, hodgey123 said:

I am vehemently anti-Tory. I will probably still vote for Labour but I really wish there was an alternative.

For me personally Green all the way.

By far the closest to my beliefs

[Neil]

Hot news from our lizard overlords.

 

Chief lizard is unwell BBC news reader in full morning gear.

[Neil]

18 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

For me personally Green all the way.

By far the closest to my beliefs

You don't do the localism part, so not really your beliefs.

Edited February 5, 2024 by Neil

[Neil]

58 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

ok..well...yes....so if keep property and value goes up you pay some tax on that...but if you inherit property and other assets, and those total assets are worth something big, tax the f**k out of it, tax it hard, tax it real good.

I agree you can find posts of mine suggesting 100% inheritance tax 

[kaosmark2]

26 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Theres plenty:

Green policies - GB Energy, clean energy by 2030, stopping new oil/gas licenses, warm homes plan, clean air act.

New deal for workers rights

Renationalise railway 

End non-dom tax status

End charitable status for private schools

Equal pay for BAME workers

Mental health focus, see someone within a month

Ambitious targets for sewage discharge to water firms and punishments for exceeding.

This is just naming a few, there are many more.

Except this is 1/20th of the pledges they've made since Starmer came into power, and of the other 95%, they've backpedalled and reduced their commitment on virtually all of them. It's simultaneously embarrassing and uninspiring.

The issue isn't that the £28bn figure mattered, or that when it comes to the costings and details that maybe there's a better policy than the original announced ones. Things can change in 5 years and I think most people get that. It's that everything highlighted by the Labour front bench at present is weak pisswater compared to previous pledges, or is brownnosing the tabloid press.

[Neil]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

ok..well...yes....so if keep property and value goes up you pay some tax on that...but if you inherit property and other assets, and those total assets are worth something big, tax the f**k out of it, tax it hard, tax it real good.

unless you sell you've gained nothing for tax to be paid on.

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, kaosmark2 said:

Except this is 1/20th of the pledges they've made since Starmer came into power, and of the other 95%, they've backpedalled and reduced their commitment on virtually all of them. It's simultaneously embarrassing and uninspiring

like what?

you mean the pledges that Starmer made when running for leader? Or Labour pledges since he's been in power?

[Neil]

29 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

For me personally Green all the way.

By far the closest to my beliefs

voting green will enable the tories.

[Neil]

1 hour ago, Ozanne said:

the Tories trashed the economy. 

thats why labour need to stick to the fiscal rules.

[kaosmark2]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

like what?

you mean the pledges that Starmer made when running for leader? Or Labour pledges since he's been in power?

Labour pledges since he's been in power.

I realise that several of them, particularly related to renationalisation, aren't really possible in the aftermath of Trussonomics. I don't think every single policy reversal/u-turn warrants detailed assessment. I'm mostly saying there's been a huge pattern of Labour's front bench under Starmer (he's not the sole culprit) backtracking on pledges/ideas.

I'm hoping the manifesto will be a bit better, because things said to the press 3-5 years ago shouldn't matter THAT much, but I have little hope that the manifesto will give me any sense of optimism for the coming years.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Except this is 1/20th of the pledges they've made since Starmer came into power, and of the other 95%, they've backpedalled and reduced their commitment on virtually all of them. It's simultaneously embarrassing and uninspiring.

The issue isn't that the £28bn figure mattered, or that when it comes to the costings and details that maybe there's a better policy than the original announced ones. Things can change in 5 years and I think most people get that. It's that everything highlighted by the Labour front bench at present is weak pisswater compared to previous pledges, or is brownnosing the tabloid press.

Labour haven’t backtracked on many of any of those policies at all, they are current Labour policies. The OP asked for differences between the 2 parties and I shared a few of them, you can doubt their ability to fulfil them but they are there.

The £28b figure has mattered a lot here, it’s been the main crux of people’s issue which is a shame because the underlying policies are very good and exactly what we need. 
 

Also Starmer isn’t in power, Sunak is. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Neil said:

thats why labour need to stick to the fiscal rules.

They wouldn’t need to bother with fiscal rules if we had completely impartial media. 

[Skip997]

4 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

They wouldn’t need to bother with fiscal rules if we had completely impartial media. 

And more importantly democracy might actually work if we had a completely impartial media, who presented facts, not opinion.

[Neil]

12 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

They wouldn’t need to bother with fiscal rules if we had completely impartial media. 

It's not the media that spooks the financial markets but wreckless financial choices.

[Neil]

9 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

And more importantly democracy might actually work if we had a completely impartial media, who presented facts, not opinion.

Would need impartial readers too 😛 😜

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Neil said:

It's not the media that spooks the financial markets but wreckless financial choices.

Yes of course.

My point is that if the media were impartial then Labour wouldn’t have to try to convince the public they are safe with public money because the media wouldn’t be peddling Tory myths. Labour wouldn’t need to worry about fiscal headroom.