Everything about Labour's language speaks to understanding the dire state the country will be in after the Tories. But as we approach a change election, that change has to be tangible.
The Tories are very adept at presenting half baked policies as more than they are. Take Johnson on social care, for instance, or the freeports stuff. They're good at selling crap products with boosterish claims (amplified by a supine tabloid media) about their 'turbocharging growth' or 'unleashing Brexit benefits' etc.
Labour, on the other hand, has a timidity and defensiveness in general about selling its policy offers in punchy confident terms (partly because the default media line is always 'ok but how will you pay for it?', which is always tough for oppositions - usually Labour - to answer).
This lack of confidence is partly a result of fear of media reactions, but also memories of painful losses like '92. (Public school imbues a certain type of bullish self confidence in people too, which I think partly explains the Tory approach). But being so far ahead now in the polls gives Starmer latitude to be bolder by which I mean clearer about the 'how'. I suspect he thinks the opposite is true - that he needs to be cautious to protect a big poll lead - but if true, I think he'd be wrong on that score. There is a risk of a 2010 in reverse (as many others have argued) at the next election if more flesh is not put on the bones of those five pledges. I speak from a sympathetic position and I'm sure many other voters are similarly minded in wanting not revolution but a pragmatic but specific offering from Labour. The Corbynite wing will of course always attack him with demands for 'radical agendas', which usually just means more spending commitments and nationalisation, as far as I can tell. But what he could learn from the Corbynites is the way they certainly enthusiastically promoted their 2017/19 offerings (even though in 2019 in particular overall these were mostly judged not credible by voters).
Agree absolutely with all this, and how do we pay for it? - read Stephanie Kelton, Steve Keen, Mariana Mazzucato, and many others - there is an alternative economics and surely after recurrent financial crashes, stagnant growth and a real terms fall in earnings for most of us, for at least the last 13 years, surely, surely voters are ready to give the alternative ideas a chance?
Magic Money Tree? Mainly since 2010, QE created £900bn from thin air, bought back Government debt with it, giving it to the richest hoping it would trickle down. (See BoE on QE, they say it worked - it clearly didn't). As a consequence the BoE owns nearly a third of UK Gov total debt, and the Govt. owns the BoE - and the Cons criticise a 'Magic Money Tree'!! It's what they have been doing and they would criticise Labour for doing the same thing - but injecting it into the roots of the economy where it would be sucked up.
Modest inflation doesn't hurt the low paid if their wages keep up. Inflation destroys debt.
Raising interest rates increases business costs and causes inflation, it artificially bolsters the pound and makes imports cheaper but destroys exports and UK jobs, It reduces growth and causes unemployment - reducing inflation by forcing down the wages of people who have no alternative - it's brutal and negative. There is a different way.
I could go on - but I'm about to start an online band practice - end of rant!
I don't disagree with any of this. But it will take time. Even were we to start to change to a new system on day one it would be umlikely to come into any sort of real implementation before the end of a first term. That means managing the first term under the awful system we have, and that means prioritising!
P.S. online band practice sounds extremely complicated!
To get elected we need to make promises which involve spending (investing) and show how it will be paid for. Not only for electors but also for the money market movers who don't hesitate to sink Conservative PMs they don't like let alone a Labour Govt. To get re-elected we need to make those investments pay-off within 4-5 years.
To convince people we need to start that process of education now - before a Manifesto is published. For a start, show that Cons QE has created, from thin air, £900Bn to little effect because it has tried to use 'trickle down' - who can object to trying it the other way round, injecting it into the roots of the economy so it can be sucked up? Only the richest who have benefited massively, because they were given it and it didn't trickle down they kept it!
Reducing top rates of tax didn't boost the economy for the same reason. Reduce taxation for below average earners by reducing VAT and making income tax more progressive. Remove the cap on NI, have may more IT thresholds so there is not the higher rate/lower rate divide.
Promote the idea that more progressive Income Tax recognises those who are doing best out of the economy and taxes everyone more fairly. That tax is not just to pay for Public Services but to take money out from the top to reinvest it at the roots of the Economy - it all goes round and the faster it circulates the more growth and tax receipts. Everyone gets richer, even the richest but not as fast as they have been doing - but they get the benefit of living in a society where their employees are better educated, healthier, have child care and social care for elderly relatives, law and order prevails and there is a prosperous consumer base.
I could go on but won't.
P.S. re band sessions - 4 of us use the Jamkazam app/network which smooths out delay ($10/month), with an audio interface 'box' (about £100) which you can plug a mic and instrument into and supports the computer processor speed. Been using it since lockdown started, works OK 99% of the time.
The Tories are very adept at presenting half baked policies as more than they are. Take Johnson on social care, for instance, or the freeports stuff. They're good at selling crap products with boosterish claims (amplified by a supine tabloid media) about their 'turbocharging growth' or 'unleashing Brexit benefits' etc.
Labour, on the other hand, has a timidity and defensiveness in general about selling its policy offers in punchy confident terms (partly because the default media line is always 'ok but how will you pay for it?', which is always tough for oppositions - usually Labour - to answer).
This lack of confidence is partly a result of fear of media reactions, but also memories of painful losses like '92. (Public school imbues a certain type of bullish self confidence in people too, which I think partly explains the Tory approach). But being so far ahead now in the polls gives Starmer latitude to be bolder by which I mean clearer about the 'how'. I suspect he thinks the opposite is true - that he needs to be cautious to protect a big poll lead - but if true, I think he'd be wrong on that score. There is a risk of a 2010 in reverse (as many others have argued) at the next election if more flesh is not put on the bones of those five pledges. I speak from a sympathetic position and I'm sure many other voters are similarly minded in wanting not revolution but a pragmatic but specific offering from Labour. The Corbynite wing will of course always attack him with demands for 'radical agendas', which usually just means more spending commitments and nationalisation, as far as I can tell. But what he could learn from the Corbynites is the way they certainly enthusiastically promoted their 2017/19 offerings (even though in 2019 in particular overall these were mostly judged not credible by voters).
Agree absolutely with all this, and how do we pay for it? - read Stephanie Kelton, Steve Keen, Mariana Mazzucato, and many others - there is an alternative economics and surely after recurrent financial crashes, stagnant growth and a real terms fall in earnings for most of us, for at least the last 13 years, surely, surely voters are ready to give the alternative ideas a chance?
Magic Money Tree? Mainly since 2010, QE created £900bn from thin air, bought back Government debt with it, giving it to the richest hoping it would trickle down. (See BoE on QE, they say it worked - it clearly didn't). As a consequence the BoE owns nearly a third of UK Gov total debt, and the Govt. owns the BoE - and the Cons criticise a 'Magic Money Tree'!! It's what they have been doing and they would criticise Labour for doing the same thing - but injecting it into the roots of the economy where it would be sucked up.
Modest inflation doesn't hurt the low paid if their wages keep up. Inflation destroys debt.
Raising interest rates increases business costs and causes inflation, it artificially bolsters the pound and makes imports cheaper but destroys exports and UK jobs, It reduces growth and causes unemployment - reducing inflation by forcing down the wages of people who have no alternative - it's brutal and negative. There is a different way.
I could go on - but I'm about to start an online band practice - end of rant!
I don't disagree with any of this. But it will take time. Even were we to start to change to a new system on day one it would be umlikely to come into any sort of real implementation before the end of a first term. That means managing the first term under the awful system we have, and that means prioritising!
P.S. online band practice sounds extremely complicated!
To get elected we need to make promises which involve spending (investing) and show how it will be paid for. Not only for electors but also for the money market movers who don't hesitate to sink Conservative PMs they don't like let alone a Labour Govt. To get re-elected we need to make those investments pay-off within 4-5 years.
To convince people we need to start that process of education now - before a Manifesto is published. For a start, show that Cons QE has created, from thin air, £900Bn to little effect because it has tried to use 'trickle down' - who can object to trying it the other way round, injecting it into the roots of the economy so it can be sucked up? Only the richest who have benefited massively, because they were given it and it didn't trickle down they kept it!
Reducing top rates of tax didn't boost the economy for the same reason. Reduce taxation for below average earners by reducing VAT and making income tax more progressive. Remove the cap on NI, have may more IT thresholds so there is not the higher rate/lower rate divide.
Promote the idea that more progressive Income Tax recognises those who are doing best out of the economy and taxes everyone more fairly. That tax is not just to pay for Public Services but to take money out from the top to reinvest it at the roots of the Economy - it all goes round and the faster it circulates the more growth and tax receipts. Everyone gets richer, even the richest but not as fast as they have been doing - but they get the benefit of living in a society where their employees are better educated, healthier, have child care and social care for elderly relatives, law and order prevails and there is a prosperous consumer base.
I could go on but won't.
P.S. re band sessions - 4 of us use the Jamkazam app/network which smooths out delay ($10/month), with an audio interface 'box' (about £100) which you can plug a mic and instrument into and supports the computer processor speed. Been using it since lockdown started, works OK 99% of the time.