Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Never going to be a better chance to take them on, in my view.

I understand what's going on here.
It's easier to understand in the context of siting watching the Tour De France.

Starmer could begin laying down election policy now, the equivalent of a long break for a cycling stage win.
Long breaks tip your hand and are usually reeled in and pipped close to the end by opportunist sprinters.

The tories are classic opportunists.
They will steal any early policy announcements, borrow the slogans and then fail to deliver.
And they have a strong support team: the Sun, Mail, Express, Telegraph, GB News will conduct spoiling attacks if Starmer moves early.
Starmer's better not tipping his hand until manifestos are printed.

Meanwhile he introduces his shadow cabinet, and work on exposing the government's corruption and lack of ideas.
I'm happy to wait as he plays the long game.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 2:24 pm 21 points ahead v the worst PM ever, with more economic shit heading our way. I think they can afford £1,3bn a year in that context.

During the 1997 election campaign, even with Labour holding comfortable double digit poll leads, Blair and Alistair Campbell were still holding a tight rein and making sure no-one did a thing wrong. We can't say we can afford anything that might hand the slightest opportunity to the Tories.

In which case, say you can't guarantee to do it or something. Don't say you won't, especially when you've said you should.

Only a bloody fool would commit to spending without checking the state of the finances first, and until the incoming Labour government can get it's hands on the paperwork they have no real idea as to what sort of a bloody shambles the Tories have created.

Don’t forget also that Blair/Brown were so careful that they sustained a promise to keep to the Tories’ overall spending plans, and actually did stick to them for that whole first term. I thought that in retrospect, that was un-necessary and delayed a number of much needed changes, but the discipline was absolutely iron. Starmer/Reeves are very clearly determined to follow that example. The priceless porcelain vase, again, but I wonder whether when or if we hear Starmer intone on the morning after the election “A new dawn has broken, has it not ?” we will understand that it was all worth it. I’m very much betting that we will.

Yug wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 5:17 pm Only a bloody fool would commit to spending without checking the state of the finances first, and until the incoming Labour government can get it's hands on the paperwork they have no real idea as to what sort of a bloody shambles the Tories have created.

For me, that hold a lot more credible promise than, "we'll send trans remainers to Kigali workhouses", or whatever kippy-pish we are usually treated to on a Sunday morning.

Yug wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 5:17 pm Only a bloody fool would commit to spending without checking the state of the finances first, and until the incoming Labour government can get it's hands on the paperwork they have no real idea as to what sort of a bloody shambles the Tories have created.

He didn't say that, did he? He said he wouldn't do it, up front.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 6:10 pm

Yug wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 5:17 pm Only a bloody fool would commit to spending without checking the state of the finances first, and until the incoming Labour government can get it's hands on the paperwork they have no real idea as to what sort of a bloody shambles the Tories have created.

He didn't say that, did he? He said he wouldn't do it, up front.

No room for doubt. Best thing. It won’t come up again.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 6:10 pm He didn't say that, did he? He said he wouldn't do it, up front.

Vases; that was then, this is now. Especially when the tories and their fashy press mates are throwing increasingly incendiary devices in your direction.

Having criticised Sir Keir, I still feel inclined to rally to him when the usual suspects get stuck in.



So, "Thatcherite" then..

https://obr.uk/box/the-uks-tax-burden-i ... l-context/

How big was the Thatcherite state?

the UK tax burden fell from a high of 33.9 per cent of GDP in 1982 to a low of 27.4 per cent in 1993

Where does the OBR think we're heading under Sunak?

As described elsewhere in this chapter, and also illustrated in Chart A based on the OECD’s measure, the UK’s tax burden is set to rise to a post-war high of 37.7 per cent of GDP in 2027-28

So apart from raising an extra 10p in every pound for tax, everything's Thatcherite? That does seem to be a quite significant difference with Thatcherism, I reckon. Still grim, but those are the scores on the doors.

The UK’s polity and its associated news media really needs to stop referring to the “tax burden”. It’s such a downer, so negative.

We need to start regarding taxation as a positive thing. The term “tax contribution” is far better.

Just another jaundiced symptom of our toxic culture, I suppose.

Murphy is probably referring to Laura K asking Keir if he was a fiscal conservative and he didn’t answer either way. Murphy’s really tinned eared and shite at politics

Anyone who puts up taxes for spending is a neoliberal sell out to Murphy. Have we had his explanation for Liz Truss yet?

I like Starmer, runs a tight ship and doesn't dance to Tories tune or gives them ammo. Labour have lost four elections on the trot so you have to switch up the game. Besides, you can keep the two-child cap for eternity but once in government there's nothing to stop you from creating a "XYZ Credit" to target specific hardships.

Of course we get the invariable John Harris article.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... rs-climate

John Major and Ken Clarke were serious politicians who handed Blair an economy in reasonable shape. Keir’s being handed a skip fire by a government of shysters and cranks not even considered rational state actors by the rest of the world.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 12:55 am Of course we get the invariable John Harris article.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... rs-climate

I think you mean inevitable, don't you ?

See also Cameron and Osborne. Milliband really thought he had them on VAT because there was something like £12bn missing from the plans. Nah, nah, said Cameron, not raising VAT, because I'm going to find £12bn "welfare" cuts that the lefty Lib Dems have stopped me doing. OK. the Lib Dems can't block you from telling me what you'll cut, so what is it? Not telling you.

The plan was no doubt to blame Nick Clegg for blocking them in the next Parliament, just like he was going to block the Brexit referendum.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 12:41 pm

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 12:55 am Of course we get the invariable John Harris article.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... rs-climate

I think you mean inevitable, don't you ?

Yes that's what I meant.