[Abernathy]

In the proverbial nutshell, there.

[mattomac]

There was nothing wrong with the Labour amendment, this has just helped the Tories dilute their own shithousery, also helps the SNP.

And I’m sorry but in a ceasefire you need two of the parties to agree to it, though Jess I have a lot of time for, this bollocks on who will and who won’t be on the right side of history can go faff in the bushes.

End of the day on October the 7th there was a ceasefire, since there hasn’t, and one party is responsible for that and they’ve made no response since that suggests they would adhere to one.

I support fully the move to remove Netanyahu as people like him will never pause and encourage the increasing erosion of the West Bank, something you’ll see mentioned in the Labour amendment by the way.

[Crabcakes]

On the other hand, MPs are elected to represent their constituents. Starmer could easily have made his case then said he recognises some people wish to go further and make it a free vote because everyone is on the same side of this. This didn’t need to be a collective responsibility issue because as said, it makes absolutely no difference to anyone and is all in the same direction of travel.

Fire people when they rebel over renewing Trident or vote against trans rights or something. Not when they want peace and you want peace and the issue is semantics.

[Youngian]

Even if voting for a cease fire is impractical and performative, conditions for civilians in Gaza is looking ever more catastrophically tragic. Anger against Israel will only grow.

[Tubby Isaacs]

It is a gesture, but by the same token, so is a ‘humanitarian pause’. Really, the only people Netanyahu seriously needs to pay heed are the US (currently still on board with collective punishment) and his far right coalition partners. Nothing the UK government or His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition have to say on the matter is liable to trouble him significantly.

A humanitarian pause seems much more achievable though, and it's where most of the major allies and G7 are. Only EU countries who've called for a ceasefire are France, Ireland, Belgium and Spain. I think quite a few people are seeing this through the lens of Iraq, where the UK really were out on a limb with a small bunch of international neocons. That doesn't effect the moral question, of course, but it makes the diplomatic case much more understandable.

But I agree with Crabcakes- Labour put forward a constructive amendment, and the line should have been "I understand that others wanted to go further".

[Tubby Isaacs]

It seems like a truce isn't so much of a longshot.

[Tubby Isaacs]

https://novaramedia.com/2023/11/14/the- ... n-exposed/

The Corruption Behind Starmer’s Rise Has Finally Been Exposed
The media omertà is breaking.

I think on balance, Starmer will survive this.

According to the Sunday Times account, between 2017 and 2020 McSweeney failed to declare £730,000 in donations from a slew of millionaire businessmen, misreported and underreported other payments, and falsely assured supportive MPs that electoral law was being followed.

A 2021 investigation by the Electoral Commission found Labour Together guilty of more than 20 separate breaches of the law, imposed a higher-end fine, and rebuked the organisation for failing to provide a “reasonable excuse”.

Hang on 2017? Starmer was in the Shadow Cabinet and Jez was secure as leader til December 2019. The whole of that period was a masterplan to get Starmer elected in 2020? I think that's unlikely, though I'm almost impressed by the ability to do this. The connection with Starmer is that he lated employed the main man, Morgan McSweeney. Who might, you know, have been employed because he's good at fundraising or something.

Now clearly, that's not very good. But you'll notice that it didn't tell you how much the fine was. It was £14. 250 in 2021. The Tories were fined £70k in 2017 for the 2015 General Election. The Labour Together donations were declared, though late, despite what it implies here.

Now who else got fined about the same as Labour? Oh hang on.

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/ ... n-momentum

We have investigated Momentum for failing to comply with political finance laws, both as a members association and when campaigning in the 2017 general election. We concluded that Momentum committed offences, and we have fined them £16,700.

The rest of the article is just polemic. And the reason there's not been a huge amount made of this scandal in the press isn't that the media (which once attacked Starmer for buying his Mum a donkey field) is doing omerta. It's because running against Starmer on corruption for the Tories is an obviously shit idea. (And anyway, internal party politics isn't of interest to all that many people).

There are, in fairness, some killer points.

The result is basic incoherence. To pick an example almost at random, Starmerism declares itself to be a break with “trickle-down economics”, but immediately contradicts that with an insistence on growth as the cure-all whilst rejecting redistribution or structural changes in the economy, meaning that unless by magic there is no logical way that growth can benefit most people in any way other than trickling down in Starmer’s model.

I'm not entirely optimistic about Reeves' stuff, which sounds to me like Bidenism without the dollar. But it's not just laisser faire trickle down (if that expression is even appropriate now for taxes being much higher than they were in Thatcher-Regan times). They're trying to use the government to promote productivity more than has been done recently. the union policies, if they happen, would be structural anyway. No mention of these.

Relatedly, Starmer’s insistence that “when business profits, we all do” is the polar opposite of what has actually been happening in the economy, actively and aggressively belied by the current cost of living crunch. Sellers’ inflation and corporate profiteering have been occurring at the expense of the vast majority, for whom living standards have been declining as profits have soared, prices risen, and interest rates shot up. Only a political party that has hitherto been allowed to play on easy mode could get away with such glaringly self-evident contradictions.

Politician in "saying something nice about business" shock! Inflation shot up because there was a supply shock. It wasn't that companies one day thought "Hmm, let's whack up prices, easy money". Anyway, corporation tax has already been raised by Sunak, which he's being made to own. You know who gets away with "contradictions" like this? The Opposition, if they're remotely skilful. It works better than telling everyone there haven't been enough tax rises, which is the usual left position.

And the final flourish.

It’s high time that a serious journalist attempted a proper interview with Starmer about honesty, using evidence and pressing follow up questions and getting at the heart of the matter: his constant lying and dissembling. Otherwise, there is every reason to believe that come the election another pathological liar will waltz into Downing Street practically unchallenged, to the cost of us all.

"Waltz into" here means "probably winning an election", right? And even this characterisation of Starmer, where he tells devious lies with the aim of getting into power doesn't make him a "pathological liar"- that's precisely the opposite, somebody who can't control their lies. Good luck with making out he's like Bozo though chaps.

[Andy McDandy]

I was half expecting them to go into full Richard Herring "Is it the businessman in his suit and tie?" mode.

Thing to consider - what does Britain do that can't be replicated anywhere else in the world? That's right, nothing! And if we went all Year Zero or even adopted the sort of economic policy Novara seem to be calling for, we'd be facing sanctions and boycotts and be generally shunned by much of the world's leading economies.

[Abernathy]

Novara Media, eh ? Surprised to find they’re still going. They absolutely don’t have their own agenda, though. Oh, no.

[Tubby Isaacs]

They seem surprised that the media hasn't massively gone to town on "Starmer is a cop" or whatever the meme is. What's far more likely is that they're saving "Starmer wasn't enough of a cop" stuff from his legal career. I fully expect Novara to get behind that too.

[Andy McDandy]

He could raise the dead and they'd accuse him or putting undertakers out of business.

[The Weeping Angel]

They seem surprised that the media hasn't massively gone to town on "Starmer is a cop" or whatever the meme is. What's far more likely is that they're saving "Starmer wasn't enough of a cop" stuff from his legal career. I fully expect Novara to get behind that too.

They imported that one from America.

[Youngian]

They seem surprised that the media hasn't massively gone to town on "Starmer is a cop" or whatever the meme is.

‘Links to the security services!’

[Abernathy]

Slightly concerned this morning to hear that "a source close to Keir Starmer" has let it be known that the "Green Prosperity" plan to spend £28 billion a year, funded through borrowing, 0n environmentally friendly measures may not now be deliverable when Labour takes power because of the state of the public finances Labour will inherit from the Tories.

Disappointing, for sure, but I dare say understandable. The Tories have been (hypocritically of course) using the attack line of "Labour wants to put the country £28 bn in debt", and will only keep doing similar between now and the election. Labour is softening us up for at least a further partial back-track, if not a U-turn, on a key flagship policy. Mustn't make those Tory to Labour switchers nervous.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Spending £28bn from the start was never a great iidea- how could they spend that money efficiently? The Tories have basically just cut £20bn from capital investment, and 10 year bonds are about 4.3%. So it's not an easy situation. But it could be very awkard politically- the Green Party/online left will just make up something to fill apparently easily.

I think the way to handle it is to say they aim to get to £28bn as quickly as possible.

[Tubby Isaacs]

And here we go (from a good writer overall). The problem is "the economic model", apparently. There's not really any sense here that the NHS that was "created" at this time was very small compare to now, not just in cash terms, but in terms of percentage of (a much lower GDP). No sense either of the cost of pensions. Or that the cheap land for social housing doesn't exist any more, at least not where anybody wants to live. Sure the fiscal rules might be too tight but you're not going to want to go too far from them.

Bizarrely, he says it was wrong to cheer on the market response to the mini budget, like whether we cheer it on or not makes any difference.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Much as it pains me to agree with a member of the SDP, this BTL has it right. (though I haven't checked his numbers) And anyway, there aren't "endless" fiscal rules. There's a single one that is causing the issue here, which could be changed. Why not say that?

[Tubby Isaacs]

And here are the projections for the near future.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... until-2028

I'm not sure the problem is just the way Rachel Reeves thinks about the "economic model". She'd no doubt do better than this nonsense Hunt is projecting, but the idea you can do some Truss-like borrowfest isn't very plausible.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Yep.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Also yep.

I'd like to hear (or I wouldn't) what Goodwin says about the reallignment in this respect. The only thing I ever saw was "it's all in my book", which is his version of Paul Ryan's magic asterisk.