Forum Topic

Mr Rose'In the modern Labour Party belief in socialism has all but disappeared, which is is why the economic policies of the two main parties are virtually indistinguishable. But the crusading spirit is still present in Labour, often accompanied by disdain for their Conservative opponents. The difference is that instead of fighting for socialism Labour activists are now focused on attacking ‘privilege’ and ending ‘discrimination’. Unfortunately, even when their policies in this regard are ill considered and oppressive, they dismiss any objections as ‘right wing’, a synonym in their view for sinful'.You are right to point out that Labour's policies are either confiscatory or aligned with 'fashionable' and often meaningless, ill-defined and unmeasurable campaigns such as 'ending discrimination' and 'reducing privilege'.Or else supporting similar minority credos such as 'genderism'; open border immigration; resisting 'climate change'; a foreign policy that consists of little more than one sided support for Palestine in the Middle  East conflict.And showing contempt for political opponents they label as 'right wing' - whatever that means.Policies that either run strongly counter to the majority of public opinion (looser immigration controls) or others listed that the same majority have little interest in.(Re 'climate change', see a good YouTube analysis of whether it is actually happening. - 'Climate:The Movie' by Martin Durkin).And of course claiming the moral high ground regarding 'anti-racism': though as Corbyn's expulsion from the Party for antisemitism and Diane Abbott's  view that unlike non-whites such as herself Jews do NOT experience racism both show, they are all over the place on getting this policy and its political consequences sorted.I wonder if her attendance on an antisemitism awareness course has opened her eyes on this matter ! But it is a little mirth making to watch how Labour manages to engineer an internal racism spat with one of its most prominent non-white MPs.But what sticks in the craw is that these beliefs and attitudes are all wrapped up in a smug, sanctimonious, self-righteous virtuousness that tries to convey that Labour and 'the left' are the kind and caring 'goodies' and the Conservatives and the 'right' are the wicked, evil 'baddies'.However what should concern a financially stretched electorate is that Labour has little or nothing to say about its detailed policies to grow the economy and make us all wealthier.What are their positions and detailed plans regarding -Tax rates ?Interest rates ?Investment incentives ?Benefit levels ?Government expenditure levels (other than the usual cliches from Rachel Reeves - "We will not spend what we cannot afford") ?Getting more people off benefits and back into gainful employment ?They don't have any or if they do they do not reveal them for fear of frightening the horses !Yes it has 'missions'.'Labour’s Five Missions: These missions are central to Labour’s election manifesto and include:1) Achieving the highest sustained growth in the G7 by the end of Labour’s first term.2) Making Britain a clean energy superpower, with a goal to remove fossil fuels from all electricity generation by 2030.3) Improving the NHS.4) Reforming the justice system.5) Raising education standards'But:1) No details (see above)2) Better get a move on. Only six years to shut down and replace our oil, gas and coal based energy production plants. Still that takes past the period of a next and potential Labour Government.3) Like how ? More money or reform ? More pay for junior doctors ?4) More prisons for drug smugglers and dealers and also gun and knife wielding gangs and individuals I would support.5)  How ? More teachers or somehow imbuing a desire to learn into pupils ?Funnily enough they seem proud of their plans to nationalise the North Sea oil and gas companies and incorporate them into 'British Energy'.But hang on.I thought the plan was for 'clean energy' so why would we want to pay over and above our current energy charges, to buy assets that we will not be using in six years time ?And note it is a plan that even the SNP is against for the detrimental effect it will have on investment and employment in the sector and region.Though as a sop they do promise to base all the Civil Servants running this quango in Edinburgh !As you say, 'instead of fighting for socialism,' in 'old Labour's' eyes a way of realising it's prime raison d'etre namely improving the financial lot of the working man/woman, it concentrates on wishy washy social issues that for the most part just make its activists feel good inside but are not of general concern and affect very few. Till Labour addresses the above I do not see them as a Party 'fit for Government'. 

John Hawkes ● 387d

Back in the sixties Harold Wilson said ‘Labour is a moral crusade or it is nothing’. In those days Labour believed that the ills of society could be cured by socialism, where the state took over the commanding heights of the economy. In the modern Labour Party belief in socialism has all but disappeared, which is is why the economic policies of the two main parties are virtually indistinguishable. But the crusading spirit is still present in Labour, often accompanied by disdain for their Conservative opponents. The difference is that instead of fighting for socialism Labour activists are now focused on attacking ‘privilege’ and ending ‘discrimination’. Unfortunately, even when their policies in this regard are ill considered and oppressive, they dismiss any objections as ‘right wing’, a synonym in their view for sinful.One example is the planned VAT raid on independent schools. The apparent justification for this initiative is to raise money to improve state education, but the underlying motive is to attack the private schools, which are regarded as the bastion of privilege. The result of this spiteful policy is that thousands of parents of modest means will be forced to withdraw their children (some of them with special needs) from their private schools even though there are insufficient places in the state system to accommodate them. Another example is Labour’s plan to increase the  windfall tax on oil and gas companies as well as to refuse further licences for drilling in the North Sea. The justification for this policy is to raise funds for renewable energy and help save the planet. The underlying motive is to confiscate the profits of the oli and gas companies, regarded as indecently large. The effect of this policy is likely to be the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and a fall in investment, which will mean that Britain will be forced to import fuel from countries with higher emissions. How does that make sense?A third example is Labour’s flirtation with the transgender lobby’s demand that men should be allowed to self certify as women. The stated aim is to end the discrimination felt by transgender people, but the effect would be to allow biological men to enter spaces reserved for women. The rights of a transgender minority would therefore be privileged over the rights of the majority of women. Sensible?A fourth (and final) example is Labour commitment to ditch the government’s plan to break the business model of the people smugglers by sending some illegal migrants to Rwanda. The stated objection is that the plan won’t work. (The evidence is that the plan is already working, given that numbers of illegal migrants have tried to enter the Irish Republic). The real reason is that many people in the Labour Party simply  regard any attempt to restrict the entry of those claiming asylum as xenophobic and inhumane. Yet if the policy of deterrence is scrapped, the numbers of migrants entering the country will continue to increase, at enormous cost to the taxpayer.The interesting question is why Labour activists entertain such ill considered policies. My explanation is that they  believe a commitment to oppose  privilege and discrimination is virtuous in itself, regardless of whether the actual policy achieves its stated aim or harms other groups in society.

Steven Rose ● 388d

I agree with you, Lucille, that Keir Starmer was biding his time in order to become party leader, espousing fashionable left wing views and overlooking the anti-Zionist and borderline anti-Semitic  stance of some of his colleagues in the shadow cabinet. But to do what?  What does he stand for? I don’t think even he knows. My impression is that he is out of his depth as a politician. As a former radical lawyer and DPP he was never really obliged to undertake a thorough examination of his political views.  But once he became leader he realised that a number of things he believed, or thought he believed, were unrealistic or just plain daft. He has now abandoned1) freedom of movement from the EU2) renationalising rail, mail, energy and water3) opposition to NHS outsourcing4) abolition of tuition fees5) abolition of universal credit6) £28 billion for the green economy7) Prevention of Military Intervention Act8) increase in income tax for the higher earners9) two child benefit cap.Labour’s policies are now virtually indistinguishable from those of the Conservatives, except in two respects:1) Labour plans to impose VAT at 20% on independent schools, even  though there are insufficient places in the state system to accommodate those children (many of them with special needs) who are likely to be withdrawn from their private schools because their parents cannot afford the increase in fees.2) Labour will ditch the Rwanda scheme even it is effective in deterring illegal migration, substituting a vacuous policy of increasing efforts to ‘smash’ the smuggler gangs.I await their manifesto with interest.

Steven Rose ● 391d

In my opinion Starmer, Corbyn and Abbott share a common bond: to improve the lives of the underprivileged, those discriminated against and the economically deprived. I'm sad to see the way Ms Abbott's career seems to be ending, she did achieve a significant milestone inbeing the first black woman MP - her article was perhaps not well thought through and insensitive to some but perhaps we all get the tone of our thoughts wrong at time and perhaps some of these feelings need to be aired so that misunderstandings can be resolved - but as a white, atheist male I may not best placed to judge that.Starmer has changed views on certain things but isn't that just a case of reacting to circumstances? For example, I can see that renationaliation of certain utilities is desirable but being pragmatic as there's no money to do it, it's a sensible change of plan. As a fellow pragmatist I'd rather have a realist like Starmer in charge than someone like Johnson with air fairy ideas that are unachievable and waste money, or Truss following a dogma against all advice that causes chaos. Of course, that doesn't mean one can't engineer a long term strategy of long term control, investment and benefit for all, as with Great British Railways or Great British Energy. Personally, the fact Sir Kier is prepared to react to the environment he has to work in gives me confidence but that doesn't detract from the fact he's looking to improve the lives of people - particularly the aforementioned underprivileged, those discriminated against and the economically deprivedCorbyn's problem was he didn't seem to realise the world had changed and he was in an environment that was and would work against him. I've no idea what Corbyn's and Starmer's personal relationship is like but having political differences doesn’t preclude friendship - I have friends and relations who support or have supported parties from Communist to Reform; although, perhaps sometimes discussion of politics - or religion - has to be to agree to disagree!

Michael Ixer ● 391d