The Starmer Labour government
- This topic has 51 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 3 hours ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I see the Labour leaders are getting into difficulty over what they mean by “working people” in relation to their pledge not to increase taxes on them. The media are having a field day pointing the contradictions — as there are.
Starmer’s attempt is:
“people who earn their living, rely on our [public] services and don’t really have the ability to write a cheque when they get into trouble.”
That would rule out a whole generation who can’t write a cheque because they don’t know what a cheque is (or was, as far as they are concerned). But also many workers who do have some savings. It would seem to include just the poorest section of the working class, even if this might not have been what he intended.
Reeves fares somewhat better:
“Working people are people who get their income from going out to work every day, and also pensioners that have worked all their lives and are now in retirement, drawing down their pensions.”
However, this would seem exclude those below retirement age who, for one reason or another, are not actually working — the unemployed, the long-term sick or the disabled. This was probably intentionally in view of the threats the new government has made to make benefit conditions more difficult.
How about: The working class is made up of all those who, excluded from ownership of productive resources, are economically obliged to get a living by trying to sell their mental and physical energies to some employer for a wage or salary.
The Labour leaders are getting nearer to defining “working people”. Here’s Bridget Phillipson, the cabinet minister in charge of education:
“Appearing on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Phillipson said the manifesto pledge referred to people “whose main source of income is the income they earn from going out to work”.
“Speaking on Sunday, Phillipson said she could not give specific information on what would be in the Budget but said: “When people look at payslips they will not see higher taxes”.
(https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c789915n5elo.amp)So they are taking about workers with payslips, the members of the working class who are actually in employment. Woe betide those who aren’t as workers on incapacity “benefit” are about to discover.
The debate over who they meant has brought out some interesting points. Here’s a stupid comment Kwasi Kwarteng, Truss’s unfortunate Chancellor of Exchequer, in yesterday’s Mail on Sunday which nevertheless has an element of truth:
“Class war is back. The stupidity of trying to distinguish between workers and investors in property and other assets is pure socialism.”
Yes, socialists do say that the basic class division in society is between those whose main source of income is what they are paid for working for an employer and those whose main source of is unearned income from property ownership (profit, rent and interest).
And yes, there is a class war, an irreconcilable conflict of interest, between these two classes. This, irrespective of whether some capitalists choose to work and many workers have savings on which they get some interest.
What has been forgotten in this debate is that Labour pledged not just not to reduce take-home pay but to put “more money in people’s pockets” (https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/labours-plan-to-power-up-britain/). They may be keeping to their other pledge not to reduce nominal take-home pay but they are definitely reneging on this one.
This one needs be recorded as a most egregious (as they say in America) example of political opportunism and cynicism in recent decades.
For years the top leaders of the Labour Party — Starmer himself, Rayner, Reeves, Kendall (the minister now in charge of pensions) — all gave the impression that, if elected, they would do something to compensate women who said they weren’t properly informed of exactly when the pension age for women was going to be raised (in the name of sex equality) to be same as that for men. The press have dug up many photos and statements by them to prove this.
This will have helped Labour garner a few more votes. But, once in power, what do they do? They refuse to do anything about it on the grounds that the women’s case wasn’t valid and anyway would cost to much.
Whether the women’s case is valid is irrelevant. What is relevant that Labour said they would support it. And this turned out to be either a lie or a vote-catching ploy.
It is conceivable some Labour candidates, now MPs, sincerely believed what they promised. The test of their sincerity will be if there ever comes to be a vote on the matter in the House of Commons.
In any event, the Labour Party’s image is now more tarnished than ever. And truth confirmed of the folk saying “Labour Tory, sane old story”.
“Labour Tory, saNe old story”. If I knew any Clement Freud I would say that was one of his ‘slips’. Are socialists crackpots?
There was a local council by-election in Dudley in the Midlands last Thursday in a ward previously held by Labour.
Here is the result:
Brockmoor & Pensnett (Dudley) Council By-Election Result:
CON: 35.4% (+7.0)
RFM: 30.1% (New)
LAB: 28.9% (-34.7)
GRN: 3.0% (New)
LDM: 1.5% (-6.5)
IND: 1.0% (New)
Conservative GAIN from LabourAnd here is what one of the sitting Councillors for the Ward put on his Facebook page:
“Councillor Steve Edwards
Yesterday at 08:16 • © Thank you to everyone in Brockmoor and Pennett who held their nose and voted Labour yesterday in the by election. Unfortunately we came 3rd. The over overriding message on the door step was anti Starmer and rightly so. Keir Starmer’s attack on the working class, our children and parents/grandparents is unjustifiable.
He lied to us all to get elected and does not deserve to be the leader of the Labour party. Good honest councillors will lose their seats because of Kier Starmer’s actions and his attack on working class people. I hope that election results like this, Labour Coming 3rd in a seat that only 6 months ago became one of our safest seats, will be the kick up the arse the National Labour Party needs but the truth is I don’t think Starmer gives a damn. I stay in the party hoping he is booted out and a proper working class person, not an establishment stooge gets to lead the party again. Your local councillors will continue to work hard and follow the traditional Labour values in spite of Starmer’s actions & reckless attack on the working class. Well done to Alex who is the new councillor 4 Brockmoor and Pensnett, we had a good chat last night and hopefully he, Karen and I will work together to make Brockma and Pennett a better place.
Keir Starmer is not your friend but we are.
Have a great Christmas folks.”I expect he’ll be expelled soon. Meanwhile ReformUk eats into Labour’s traditional base.
“. . . the over overriding message on the door step was anti Starmer and rightly so.”
I called it. I said in various SPGB Zoom Meetings that Starmer was always a liability for Labour. The question is: will he get ditched by his ‘friends’ and colleagues before the next election?
I still think this could be a one-term Labour govt.
If Farage wants it enough – and I’m not sure on that point, tbh – he could be the next UK Prime Minister.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.