[Politics] Truss v Starmer

[drew]

i reckon there wont be tax cuts expected. major cut pitched is the NI rise, which will be rebranded, as was due to, into a social tariff. without cuts in health and social care, there isnt budget wiggle room to cut that. some smoke and mirrors, Starmer will have an awkward time accusing her of not cutting taxes.

He'll just add it to the long list of Truss U-turns, once a Liberal Democrat, once a Remainer, once an anti royalist.

He won't accuse her of not cutting taxes, he'll congratulate her on seeing the light and agreeing with him.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I must admit I find it odd to see people rooting for a far-right, almost National Front Conservative party. It doesn't strike me as the same party of Major or even Cameron, but I accept this extreme right position obviously resonates with a certain demographic. A demographic I would have associated more with a Burnley forum than Brighton but heyho.

Earning twice the national average? Three times? Four times? They still don't give a sh*t buddy. Not unless you can afford to drop a £100k donation. They're not fighting your corner and never will.

The fact you minimise Johnson's dismantling of standards in public office to 'eating cake at his birthday' is telling.

It's certainly not the Conservative party of even a few years ago, and a million miles from when I have voted for Conservative candidates in the past. The party that used to look after the middle classes, professionals and small business owners is nowhere to be seen, and unless you have the sort of money that buys significant power, this current lot are shafting you constantly.

I always had good jobs, ran successful companies and was financially comfortable (and luckily still am). However after years of being in the Conservatives target demographic I am now well outside of it (not that it has ever been the main reason for my voting intentions). That is a huge majority of the Electorate currently suffering.

And yet still it continues. I really do wonder what drives people to keep doing this to themselves, time after time

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

Britain is heading for a significant economic recession - that would be made worse with a trade war with the EU. But that is where Truss is going.

The Tories are likely to go on a major reactionary binge - something along the lines of Trump. But often the whiff of reaction can provoke a mass movement of opposition - and the potential certainly exists for such a mass movement in Britain at this time.

The potential for this mass movement is currently being demonstrated by Enough is Enough and would be significantly enhanced if Corbyn became proactive in leading it. If he doesn't then there are others that could potentially fill the space - in parliament the likes of Zarah Sultana - and in the trade unions Mick Lynch, Eddie Dempsey, Sarah Graham, Dave Ward and Matt Wrack. The key thing at this point is the need for a new left-wing working class party - and Enough is Enough is the potential embryo for such a party.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Britain is heading for a significant economic recession - that would be made worse with a trade war with the EU. But that is where Truss is going.

The Tories are likely to go on a major reactionary binge - something along the lines of Trump. But often the whiff of reaction can provoke a mass movement of opposition - and the potential certainly exists for such a mass movement in Britain at this time.

The potential for this mass movement is currently being demonstrated by Enough is Enough and would be significantly enhanced if Corbyn became proactive in leading it. If he doesn't then there are others that could potentially fill the space - in parliament the likes of Zarah Sultana - and in the trade unions Mick Lynch, Eddie Dempsey, Sarah Graham, Dave Ward and Matt Wrack. The key thing at this point is the need for a new left-wing working class party - and Enough is Enough is the potential embryo for such a party.

To defeat Truss, Enough is Enough, will need to step up from agit-prop and student protests to become a bona fide party, as you appear to hope, that will contest seats at the next general election. You presumably think this will happen, and that Enough is Enough will steal seats from the Conservatives rather than split the vote on the left, forcing Truss out.

I am familiar with hope triumphing over expectation, but I am intrigued by you ability to transform hope into expectation.

If you accept my definition of defeating Truss (i.e., winning enough parliamentary seats to form a coalition - I won't hold you to a working majority, not even you are that daft), will you accept my bet: £100 of my pounds that Truss will not be defeated by Enough is Enough?

 

[Randy McNob]

There have been few more incompetent party leaders in British history than Keir Starmer - a little pretend posh-boy.


If only he had the bottle - the LP would vanish into the ether within a very short space of time if Corbyn launched a new left-wing working class party

That's the problem. The left wing / centre left vote is split between labour, SNP, Lib Dems and greens but more people vote for those parties collectively than the tories, there's no right of centre party to challenge them. Hopefully at the next election the parties will work together to stand their candidate down so voters only have 2 choices at the ballot box and the Tories get smashed

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

To defeat Truss, Enough is Enough, will need to step up from agit-prop and student protests to become a bona fide party, as you appear to hope, that will contest seats at the next general election. You presumably think this will happen, and that Enough is Enough will steal seats from the Conservatives rather than split the vote on the left, forcing Truss out.

I am familiar with hope triumphing over expectation, but I am intrigued by you ability to transform hope into expectation.

If you accept my definition of defeating Truss (i.e., winning enough parliamentary seats to form a coalition - I won't hold you to a working majority, not even you are that daft), will you accept my bet: £100 of my pounds that Truss will not be defeated by Enough is Enough?

That's the problem. The left wing / centre left vote is split between labour, SNP, Lib Dems and greens but more people vote for those parties collectively than the tories, there's no right of centre party to challenge them. Hopefully at the next election the parties will work together to stand their candidate down so voters only have 2 choices at the ballot box and the Tories get smashed

Both of you are looking at these developments with a very short-term perspective -

Truss is no different than Johnson (or Starmer) - they all serve the interests of the wealthy elites in this country. Switching out Truss for a Starmer-led New Labour will do nothing to serve the interests of working class people in Britain. The only difference between the two is that Truss wants to engage in an economic war with the EU while Starmer wants to subvert the British economy to the diktats of the EU Commission and the European Central Bank. Neither provide any respite for working class people facing economic recession, soaring prices, poverty and unemployment.

The LP membership soared under Corbyn - doubling to nearly 600,000. Since Crobyn was shafted Starmer and his acolytes have expelled tens of thousands of left-wing members and overall nearly 200,000 have left the LP. The launch of a new Corbyn led working class party would see it almost immediately become that largest party in Britain in terms of membership - the 200,000 who have already left the LP would join it immediately and tens of thousands more would flood out of the LP within weeks to join it. Furthermore - such a party would not be simply an electoral machine like the current Tories or Blairite Labour (or the LDs or the SNP for that matter) - it would be an activist party engaging on the ground with working class people.

The question posed is why would such a left party gain traction in Britain - several reasons -
1. There is widespread support in Britain for policies put forward by Corbyn while he was leader of Labour - the renationalisation of privatised services - investment in the NHS and education - the imposition of a wealth tax - increased taxation on individuals with high incomes - increases in the minimum wage - building social housing - etc. etc.
2. It would delineate a clear line between left policies and the right-wing pro-big business policies of the Tories, Starmer's Labour and the other pro-capitalist parties.
3. The elections would be fought on policy issues - not muckraking attacks on Corbyn by the media, the Tories and the Blairites within New Labour
4. Such a party would be active in communities and workplaces - would defend working class people from the attacks from the Tories and from Tory and New Labour councils - and would support workers engaged in defending their jobs, conditions and living standards.

Because of the undemocratic nature of the bourgeois parliamentary process - it is possible, but not the most likely prospect, that a new left party under Corbyn would make a huge electoral breakthrough at the next election. But it would make significant electoral inroads and would utterly change the political landscape in Britain. Corbyn's involvement would add significant weight to such a project which is why his involvement would be important - his lack of involvement would likely delay such a process, but change is underway in political terms - and not just in Britain.

Globally capitalism is in severe crisis - we are facing an era of imperialist conflict and war (the invasion of Ukraine is a symptom of that - but of greater concern is the sabre rattling between the US and Europe on one side and China on the other), of economic chaos, of climate catastrophe, of open class war by the elites against the working class. The days of stable parliamentary democracies are over - the world is facing increased economic, social and political instability - all brought on by the inability of capitalism to resolve any of the major catastrophies facing the population of the planet.

Capitalism is in its death agony - the only question to now be resolved is whether capitalism will (literally) destroy the planet before working class people can act with unified intent to prevent such a scenario playing out.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Both of you are looking at these developments with a very short-term perspective -

Truss is no different than Johnson (or Starmer) - they all serve the interests of the wealthy elites in this country. Switching out Truss for a Starmer-led New Labour will do nothing to serve the interests of working class people in Britain. The only difference between the two is that Truss wants to engage in an economic war with the EU while Starmer wants to subvert the British economy to the diktats of the EU Commission and the European Central Bank. Neither provide any respite for working class people facing economic recession, soaring prices, poverty and unemployment.

The LP membership soared under Corbyn - doubling to nearly 600,000. Since Crobyn was shafted Starmer and his acolytes have expelled tens of thousands of left-wing members and overall nearly 200,000 have left the LP. The launch of a new Corbyn led working class party would see it almost immediately become that largest party in Britain in terms of membership - the 200,000 who have already left the LP would join it immediately and tens of thousands more would flood out of the LP within weeks to join it. Furthermore - such a party would not be simply an electoral machine like the current Tories or Blairite Labour (or the LDs or the SNP for that matter) - it would be an activist party engaging on the ground with working class people.

The question posed is why would such a left party gain traction in Britain - several reasons -
1. There is widespread support in Britain for policies put forward by Corbyn while he was leader of Labour - the renationalisation of privatised services - investment in the NHS and education - the imposition of a wealth tax - increased taxation on individuals with high incomes - increases in the minimum wage - building social housing - etc. etc.
2. It would delineate a clear line between left policies and the right-wing pro-big business policies of the Tories, Starmer's Labour and the other pro-capitalist parties.
3. The elections would be fought on policy issues - not muckraking attacks on Corbyn by the media, the Tories and the Blairites within New Labour
4. Such a party would be active in communities and workplaces - would defend working class people from the attacks from the Tories and from Tory and New Labour councils - and would support workers engaged in defending their jobs, conditions and living standards.

Because of the undemocratic nature of the bourgeois parliamentary process - it is possible, but not the most likely prospect, that a new left party under Corbyn would make a huge electoral breakthrough at the next election. But it would make significant electoral inroads and would utterly change the political landscape in Britain. Corbyn's involvement would add significant weight to such a project which is why his involvement would be important - his lack of involvement would likely delay such a process, but change is underway in political terms - and not just in Britain.

Globally capitalism is in severe crisis - we are facing an era of imperialist conflict and war (the invasion of Ukraine is a symptom of that - but of greater concern is the sabre rattling between the US and Europe on one side and China on the other), of economic chaos, of climate catastrophe, of open class war by the elites against the working class. The days of stable parliamentary democracies are over - the world is facing increased economic, social and political instability - all brought on by the inability of capitalism to resolve any of the major catastrophies facing the population of the planet.

Capitalism is in its death agony - the only question to now be resolved is whether capitalism will (literally) destroy the planet before working class people can act with unified intent to prevent such a scenario playing out.

So you won't take my bet, then?

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

So you won't take my bet, then?

I don't gamble - and I don't have a crystal ball either.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I don't gamble - and I don't have a crystal ball either.

Fair enough. I disagree with your apparent conflation of hope and expectation in terms of the popularity of the Corbyn left, and you doomy predictions if your hopes of a Corbyn government are not fulfilled. I neither consider that everything we (as a society) are doing now is wrong nor that everything that Corbyn would do as a leader would be correct. One thing humans seem quite good at is surviving. If disruptive change is triggered by events, I doubt that any doctrine from the past, whether your sort of socialism or Britain First style fascism, would hold sway. All the best

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

Fair enough. I disagree with your apparent conflation of hope and expectation in terms of the popularity of the Corbyn left, and you doomy predictions if your hopes of a Corbyn government are not fulfilled. I neither consider that everything we (as a society) are doing now is wrong nor that everything that Corbyn would do as a leader would be correct. One thing humans seem quite good at is surviving. If disruptive change is triggered by events, I doubt that any doctrine from the past, whether your sort of socialism or Britain First style fascism, would hold sway. All the best

From my perspective this has nothing to do with 'hope' and 'expectation' or 'doomy predictions'

The reality is that capitalism is in its death agony - as has been termed by some people, we are moving from an 'age of crises' to and 'age of catastrophe'. The Capitalist West was triumphant when Stalinism collapsed - blissfully unaware that, from their perspective, that Stalinism, to a degree, actually kept the destructive forces of capitalism in check. When the end of Stalinism that disappeared and over the last 30 years the capitalist elites have been hurtling headlong towards the edge of a precipice - towards global pandemics because of the destruction of rainforests (as a result of pressure from the global agri-business), towards economic crises because of unfetered profiteering and inequality, towards inter-imperialist conflict - including the rapidly increasing risk of nuclear conflict, and last but not least, an impending climate catastrophe that capitalism is incapable of resolving.

Furthermore, you are mistaken in your assertion that Marxism is an ideology of the past - any more so than capitalism. Marxism emerged as a result of the existance of capitalism - just as capitalism emergered as a result of the structure and conditions of feudal society. Fascism emerged as a capitalist reaction to Marxism - as the blunt edge of reaction from the capitalist elites designed to atomise working class organisations who threatened the existance of capitalism itself. Over the last 30 years the West has been largely insulated from upheaval as a result of the raping of the economic and natural resources of the neo-colonial world - a situation that has lead to revolutionary upheavals like the Arab Spring. So far the current 'cost of living' crisis has seen potentially revolutionary upheavals emeging across the Indian sub-continent, in Sri Lanka and in Indonesia. This is likely to continue and spread.

Brexit, Trump, Johnson, Truss and the myriad of far-right elements spouting anti-covid, anti-vacs, anti-imiigrant hostility are manifestations of the scale of the crises within capitalist society. As capitalism proves incapable of resolving these issues we will see more and more fracturing of society. These crises have also seen the re-emergece of left-wing and Marxist forces. I have no illusions in Jeremy Corbyn - Corbyn is a reformist who does not advocate moving anywhere beyond attempting to reform capitalism. What Corbyn did as leader of the Labour Party was to provide an opporunity of large sections of the working class to express themselves and their support for left-wing policies (a majority of the population in Britain openly support left-wing policies like nationalisation, increased funding of health and education, taxation of the rich, action on climate change, etc.) - the mistake Corbyn made, and it was a manifestation of his reformist outlook, was to try and compromise and accomodate the Blairites. All he did was give them the time, space and opportunity to stab him in the face.

You say that human beings are very good at surviving - which is very true on an individual basis. However, this is very much an assertion based on pre-capitalist societies. Capitalism is built on an industrial infrastructure that directly impacts on global climate. Capitalism is built on a political foundation that fosters inter-imperialist rivalry (both world wars were the result of this). Capitalism now has the capacity to destroy the planet with nuclear weapons - and there is an increasing danger of this as the different imperialist power blocs jockey for position in an ever increasing unstable economic, political and social situation. The capitalist elites recognise this - that is why they are building bunker complexes for themselves in New Zealand, why they are talking about colonising Mars and creating outer space living platforms. The world of 'Elysium' is actually the plan B of the capitalist elites. Captialism has been destroying the planet for 300 years and cannot stop - because the raping of natural resuources kepps capitalism on life-support. Unfortunately human beings living in a capitalist world, on an individual basis, cannot control what is happening and cannot determine the outcome - however, on a collective basis and with collective action it is a different story. There is no force more powerful on the planet that the collective action of the working class. The pandemic demonstrated this is spades - without the action of health workers, education workers, and all the other 'frontline' workers over the past 2+ years human society would have fallen off an cliff - and the workers succeeded in doing this through collective effort and largely without any assistance from the capitalist elites (most of whom were profitering from exploiting the crisis).

As I have stated - we are entering an age of catastrophe - with the potential of the climate crisis (at the very lest) destroying large parts of the planet. The targets 'agreed' by the elites to combat climate change - targets that were not going to solve the crisis and were never going to be achieved anyway - have already been tossed out the window as they try to grapple with the cost of living crisis. We are also facing into increasingly an unstable economic situation. The global economy is facing stagflation. The last time this happened was in the 1970s and capitalism pulled itself out of the crisis by the wholesale privatisation of public services - it cannot do that again because there is nothing left to privatise. Capitalism needs inflation to drive increasing profits - and it works from their perspective as long as the inflation can be kept at a steady rate. Rising inflation directly impacts on the living standards of working class people - profits have been booming for the past two years. In 1971 the USA saw a spike in inflation - Richard Nixon imposed a price and wage freeze - something that stopped living standards falling - and it cut the legs from under inflation. However, when the US adminstration decided to lift the freeze it blindly walked into the 1973 oil crisis and a worldiwde recession. Now the capitalist class won't even countenance imposing such a measure - they have one bullet - raising interest rates - something which results is a transfusion of wealthy from working class people paying mortgages to the banks, vulture funds and capitalist elites.

The only solution to the oncoming era of catastrophe - and I stress the word ONLY - is the establishment of a democratically planned socialised economy that operates on the basis of providing for need and not profit, one based on international cooperation, not competition, one based on preserving the planet and not destroying it, one based on operating in the interests of human kind, not genuflecting at the high alter of 'the market'.

 

[Mo Gosfield]

There are only two known cures for insomnia in this world......Liz Truss and Keir Starmer.

 

[BLOCK F]

There are only two known cures for insomnia in this world......Liz Truss and Keir Starmer.

You can add Jolly Red Giant’s lectures on socialism.

 

[Horses Arse]

It's certainly not the Conservative party of even a few years ago, and a million miles from when I have voted for Conservative candidates in the past. The party that used to look after the middle classes, professionals and small business owners is nowhere to be seen, and unless you have the sort of money that buys significant power, this current lot are shafting you constantly.

I always had good jobs, ran successful companies and was financially comfortable (and luckily still am). However after years of being in the Conservatives target demographic I am now well outside of it (not that it has ever been the main reason for my voting intentions). That is a huge majority of the Electorate currently suffering.

And yet still it continues. I really do wonder what drives people to keep doing this to themselves, time after time

Me too - but I have never voted for the cheating uncaring robbing sods - never even come close. Voting for selfish reasons is the reason this country is on its arse

 

[WATFORD zero]

It's certainly not the Conservative party of even a few years ago, and a million miles from when I have voted for Conservative candidates in the past. The party that used to look after the middle classes, professionals and small business owners is nowhere to be seen, and unless you have the sort of money that buys significant power, this current lot are shafting you constantly.

I always had good jobs, ran successful companies and was financially comfortable (and luckily still am). However after years of being in the Conservatives target demographic I am now well outside of it (not that it has ever been the main reason for my voting intentions). That is a huge majority of the Electorate currently suffering.

And yet still it continues. I really do wonder what drives people to keep doing this to themselves, time after time

Me too - but I have never voted for the cheating uncaring robbing sods - never even come close. Voting for selfish reasons is the reason this country is on its arse

I believe you missed part of of my post with your highlight which I have corrected above. And I don't think simple selfishness is the sole reason this country is on it's arse.

As my post highlighted, there has been quite phenomenal amounts of stupidity over quite a long period as well, in order to get us to the place we are now

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

She will get better as she grows in confidence. She will be fine. Its whether she delivers on her promises or not. She doesn't have much time to convince the general public though. Let's give her our support

If she had realistic policies I could support, I might.

Given the pie in the Sky uncaring and inhumane hotch potch she has come up with, no chance.

 

[Horses Arse]

I believe you missed part of of my post with your highlight which I have corrected above. And I don't think simple selfishness is the sole reason this country is on it's arse.

As my post highlighted, there has been quite phenomenal amounts of stupidity over quite a long period as well, in order to get us to the place we are now

I did indeed! I do think selfishness has been the main reason for the nosedive though. Thatcher started the 'its ok to be selfish and uncaring' approach, she celebrated it and was celebrated for it. She created multiple generations reliant on and expecting of benefits - the benefit spongers as the modern day Tory's refer to them are the ******* child of the Tory party. Caused by selfishness and obsession with the free market. We have become an entirely selfish nation and it continues to damage us all.

 

[Randy McNob]

I did indeed! I do think selfishness has been the main reason for the nosedive though. Thatcher started the 'its ok to be selfish and uncaring' approach, she celebrated it and was celebrated for it. She created multiple generations reliant on and expecting of benefits - the benefit spongers as the modern day Tory's refer to them are the ******* child of the Tory party. Caused by selfishness and obsession with the free market. We have become an entirely selfish nation and it continues to damage us all.

Worst cost of living crisis since the war, more food banks than McDonalds, people choosing between heating and eating this winter.

Tories priority? Bigger bonuses for Bankers

 

[Randy McNob]

[tweet]1570310048961667081[/tweet]

 

[cunning fergus]

Worst cost of living crisis since the war, more food banks than McDonalds, people choosing between heating and eating this winter.

Tories priority? Bigger bonuses for Bankers

For many like you I suspect the broad media line on this story will simply scratch their perpetual prejudicial itch on Tory wickedness and the wider context on what may actually be happening will be lost. I know you need it simple so here goes.

“Bankers bonuses” is the colloquial term for remuneration of certain individuals in Financial Services, and you don’t need to be a banker or work for a bank to be subject to the remuneration rules.

The rules are tied up with EU Directives and Rules known as the Capital Requirements Directives (CRDs) and Capital Requirements Regulations (CRR). The effects of the CRDs and CRR are complete in U.K. law post Brexit, they are long standing rules and the remuneration aspect is overall a very small part.

How individual financial services firms organise their internal capital, and remunerate senior staff/management is varied (as it should be) and for many (that are not banks) the internal capital and remuneration requirements are an administrative burden and restriction that limits how they invest internal capital. In some areas the rules are actually counter intuitive.

https://www.fia.org/epta/resources/crd-iv-bonus-cap-has-perverse-effect-increasing-risk

The problems with CRD and CRR are well understood and reform remains a priority for ESMA/EU Commission in the EU. So, this reform of CRD and CRR would come whether the U.K. was in the EU or not, however getting it done before the EU would be a competitive advantage.

So, review of the CRD and CRR is the right thing to do if you have a massive and diverse financial services industry as a way to turning some investment taps on, if investment leads to greater profits for those institutions then no doubt bonuses would increase. Just like win payments would do for Premiership footballers.



Should have happened years ago.

 

[Randy McNob]

For many like you I suspect the broad media line on this story will simply scratch their perpetual prejudicial itch on Tory wickedness and the wider context on what may actually be happening will be lost. I know you need it simple so here goes.

“Bankers bonuses” is the colloquial term for remuneration of certain individuals in Financial Services, and you don’t need to be a banker or work for a bank to be subject to the remuneration rules.

The rules are tied up with EU Directives and Rules known as the Capital Requirements Directives (CRDs) and Capital Requirements Regulations (CRR). The effects of the CRDs and CRR are complete in U.K. law post Brexit, they are long standing rules and the remuneration aspect is overall a very small part.

How individual financial services firms organise their internal capital, and remunerate senior staff/management is varied (as it should be) and for many (that are not banks) the internal capital and remuneration requirements are an administrative burden and restriction that limits how they invest internal capital. In some areas the rules are actually counter intuitive.

https://www.fia.org/epta/resources/crd-iv-bonus-cap-has-perverse-effect-increasing-risk

The problems with CRD and CRR are well understood and reform remains a priority for ESMA/EU Commission in the EU. So, this reform of CRD and CRR would come whether the U.K. was in the EU or not, however getting it done before the EU would be a competitive advantage.

So, review of the CRD and CRR is the right thing to do if you have a massive and diverse financial services industry as a way to turning some investment taps on, if investment leads to greater profits for those institutions then no doubt bonuses would increase. Just like win payments would do for Premiership footballers.



Should have happened years ago.

I think it's more of a 'level playing field' argument.

Are there any examples where restrictions on bonuses have hindered investment or financial performance?