Labour Party/government Watch

[UndercoverElephant]

Reeves first speech as Chancellor:

"GROWTH, GROWTH, GROWTH, GROWTH, GROWTH, GROWTH, GROWTH! The only way to solve Britain's economic and social problems, and make everybody richer, is sustained economic growth."

Unfortunately, as we all know, economic growth is ecologically (and therefore economically) unsustainable. The solution to all of our problems is their cause!

What a pile of utter bollocks. I hate them already. Not being the tories is not enough.

[dustiswhatweare]

It would not surprise me to see them get radical. Nothing stands in their way. All along I have been hoping this would be the case, we'll see.

Nothing stands in their way in terms of their parliamentary majority. Their problem is that they don't have a mandate to get radical, and they've shown no sign of being about to get radical. What sort of radical are you expecting or hoping for?

The only thing I can see that they could do is to go after entrenched wealth: non-doms, tax avoidance in general, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, multiple/bad landlords, the banks, big landowners, etc.... This is the true bedrock of the Conservative Party -- it's what the tories have always actually represented, even though they've always assembled a bigger coalition of voters in order to gain and retain power. I'd like to see it, but I am not holding my breath.

Baby steps. Better than nothing, now, what about insulation standards in new builds amongst other things:

“We are therefore committed to doubling onshore wind energy by 2030. That means immediately removing the de facto ban on onshore wind in England in place since 2015. We are revising planning policy to place onshore wind on the same footing as other energy development in the National Planning Policy Framework.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ing-policy

[UndercoverElephant]

It would not surprise me to see them get radical. Nothing stands in their way. All along I have been hoping this would be the case, we'll see.

Nothing stands in their way in terms of their parliamentary majority. Their problem is that they don't have a mandate to get radical, and they've shown no sign of being about to get radical. What sort of radical are you expecting or hoping for?

The only thing I can see that they could do is to go after entrenched wealth: non-doms, tax avoidance in general, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, multiple/bad landlords, the banks, big landowners, etc.... This is the true bedrock of the Conservative Party -- it's what the tories have always actually represented, even though they've always assembled a bigger coalition of voters in order to gain and retain power. I'd like to see it, but I am not holding my breath.

Baby steps. Better than nothing, now, what about insulation standards in new builds amongst other things:

“We are therefore committed to doubling onshore wind energy by 2030. That means immediately removing the de facto ban on onshore wind in England in place since 2015. We are revising planning policy to place onshore wind on the same footing as other energy development in the National Planning Policy Framework.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ing-policy

Baby steps = re-arranging deckchairs on the Titanic.

[Potemkin Villager]

Baby steps = re-arranging deckchairs on the Titanic.

They are not trying to meet any long term environmental aims, no politician really is.
Are only trying to do just enough that is not too unpopular to get reelected.

In my experience politicians love things that very visibly show they are getting things done
and much less so things that are not visible are costly and disrupt folk's domestic arrangements.
Onshore wind farms are very visible but not in the right way to suit many well off residents of the countryside
who are also not keen on new housing estates for plebs being built near them. Can imagine the protest
in Middle England all this will cause.

Also the chancellor is an economist (duh!) who already has the usual vested interests cosying up including
the landlord and construction lobbies so don't expect rapid progress when it comes to what would be a vote winner like
legislation to improve tenants rights.

The shit show is yet to begin.

[UndercoverElephant]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ar ... ions-begin?

Labour to fight 2029 election ‘like an insurgent’ as preparations begin

Party’s strategist already planning how to secure second term, bolstered by former MP’s appointment to thinktank

Labour has already begun preparing for its 2029 election campaign, with the party’s political strategist Morgan McSweeney telling associates that he wants to build a new coalition of voters and “fight it like an insurgent” party.

Keir Starmer has only been prime minister for a week, making a slick start in his first days in government, but his team has already started putting in place the structures to win a second term.

This includes McSweeney being charged with thinking about political choices that will secure another victory, and Jonathan Ashworth, the former MP now leading the Labour Together thinktank, taking a “highly, highly political” role.

In a fireside chat this week with David Axelrod, the US star strategist for Barack Obama, McSweeney told those attending that his job now was to “think about the 2029 election”.

He said the party did not have to start with its current coalition of voters and would start again building the support it would need to win based on the likely electoral picture.

That is interesting, because it is basically an open acknowledgement that the coalition of voters which just put Labour into power cannot be expected to put them back into power in 2029, as well as at being probable that Labour won't call an election in year 4 (as confident governments often have in the past). If Labour cares more about future voters and less about past ones than most incoming governments do then it might end up veering away from its current political position in an attempt to build a more stable coalition of voters for the future. Given the current state of both the country and the world, that is likely to require some very big ideas. They are going to have to do things which some of the people who just voted for them are really not going to like, in the hope that this can win them more new voters than it loses them. But where are those votes going to come from? Whose vote share can they grab without losing more than they gain?

[Potemkin Villager]

This includes McSweeney being charged with thinking about political choices that will secure another victory

This boyo's a pretty cute hoor, especially when it came to reporting Labour Together donations to the Electoral Commission,
with family connections to Fine Gael in Ireland. Believes in keeping it in the family and strangely enough his wife got selected
as a labour candidate and is now MP for Hamilton and Clyde valley.

[kenneal - lagger]

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the votes for the LibDems in the south were actually votes for Labour. LibDems being the number two in many of those seats were seen as the way to vote the Tories out and Labour in: it was certainly the case with my vote. That would considerably add to the Labour share of the vote.

At the beginning of the campaign, Labour were advocating a national insulation scheme but this was dropped after attacks by the Tories, among others, over funding it. I wouldn't be surprised if they were also nobbled by the Big 6 energy companies as well, as insulation can save too much fuel and hit company profits. Using less is also bad for growth so Labour are now advocating the Tories policy of wasting the same amount of energy as we have done historically but making it renewable energy and so "sustainable"! Hence Labour's drive for PV on roofs even if the house below leaks like a sieve.

It is unlikely that we will have a sensible sustainability policy while GROWTH, GROWTH, GROWTH, is at the heart of politics and economics.

[UndercoverElephant]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c978m6z3egno

Seven Labour MPs have had the whip suspended for six months after voting against the government on an amendment to scrap the two-child benefit cap.

Ex-shadow chancellor John McDonnell was among the Labour MPs who voted for an SNP motion calling for an end to the policy, which prevents almost all parents from claiming Universal Credit or child tax credit for more than two children.

Losing the whip means the MPs are suspended from the parliamentary party and will now sit as independents.

MPs rejected the SNP amendment by 363 votes to 103, in the first major test of the new Labour government’s power.

Don't mess with the Starminator.

Mr McDonnell backed the SNP motion alongside Richard Burgon, Ian Byre, Rebecca Long-Bailey, Imran Hussain, Apsana Begum and Zarah Sultana.

I know four of those, and can't stand any of them. Especially Burgon. EDIT...a bit tough on McDonnell, he's OK really.

[clv101]

It's all a nonsense as it is absolutely inevitable that the 2-child cap will be lifted soon, if not at the autumn statement it'll be in next spring's budget.

[UndercoverElephant]

It's all a nonsense as it is absolutely inevitable that the 2-child cap will be lifted soon, if not at the autumn statement it'll be in next spring's budget.

Why do you think that (I have no opinion on whether it is inevitable)?

[mr brightside]

It's all a nonsense as it is absolutely inevitable that the 2-child cap will be lifted soon, if not at the autumn statement it'll be in next spring's budget.

Does it actually discourage childbirth?

[Ralphw2]

The cap was nominally introduced to discourage poor people having kids they could not afford to raise. That policy has failed, and removing it would remove millions of children from official definition of poverty for moderate cost, and probably significant social benefit . Previous generations of socialist governments would be spinning in their grave over Starmers stance.

Also, the rapidly declining birth rate to well below replacement levels is giving economists nightmares, so paying the poor to have kids might be seen as a long term investment, given how unpopular immigration is. Of course, that then gets complicated by the ethnicity imbalance of poverty in the UK, and the inconvenient statistics of how socially immobile the UK has become. Poor kids generally grow up to be poor and unproductive adults.

[Forever_Winter]

Folks, Labour are looking to be much worse than I was expecting. Cutting winter fuel payments to pensioners, which could easily be affordable. The 6.5 billion is roughly the same as housing undocumented migrants . I give this government 2 years max depending what happens in the US.....

[UndercoverElephant]

Folks, Labour are looking to be much worse than I was expecting. Cutting winter fuel payments to pensioners, which could easily be affordable.

Are they cutting it? I though they are means testing it whereas before anybody was entitled to it. We cannot afford any non-means-tested handouts.

[UndercoverElephant]

The cap was nominally introduced to discourage poor people having kids they could not afford to raise. That policy has failed, and removing it would remove millions of children from official definition of poverty for moderate cost, and probably significant social benefit . Previous generations of socialist governments would be spinning in their grave over Starmers stance.

Why should responsible people who have decided to delay kids or have fewer, because of financial constraints, subsidise irresponsible people through their taxes? This is not fair. It rewards unsustainable behaviour and punishes ecologically-sane behaviour. From my perspective, Labour's stance is progressive and yours is regressive. You are prioritising the limitation of suffering now even though it leads to a worse long-term outcome.

In short, people need to learn, and apparently that is going to have to involve immense suffering.

Also, the rapidly declining birth rate to well below replacement levels is giving economists nightmares

Good. Something needs to wake them up.

, so paying the poor to have kids might be seen as a long term investment, given how unpopular immigration is.

GROWTH, GROWTH, GROWTH...