This Once Great Movement Of Ours

[Alcibiades]

So, uh, what exactly has happened to the Labour Party in the past few years? I don't mean the immediate aftermath of Corbyn being replaced--all that was expected--but a total surrender of nearly everything Labour historically stood for to an extent not seen since the Blair years. Starmer has come out against nationalizations (which have overwhelming public support), against increased public spending (and also against tax hikes, if the concern is over deficits), and is seemingly trying to out-Tory the Tories on immigration and trans rights. What, outside of maybe climate commitments, distinguishes Starmer from Sunak at this point?

My best guess is that Starmer is afraid of doing anything that could jeopardize Labour's massive polling lead, but playing Thomas Dewey and promising absolutely nothing to anyone is exactly how you lose that polling lead by next year.

Ah yes, the Blair years, renowned for a dearth of public spending.

I'm speaking overall--Blair spent quite a lot but his tenure as leader of Labour was still a major shift to the right (as was the case for most left-of-center parties in the 1990s). Starmer seems unwilling to commit to anything at all. And, again, the total abandonment of any sort of commitment to trans rights or migrant rights.

With regards to trans rights, yes, I find Starmer’s stance disappointing, but to pretend that he is trying to “out-Tory the Tories” is ridiculous hyperbole; the point is he has been trying to thread an awkward middle ground on the issue. As far as immigration is concerned, I really have no idea what you’re on about. Starmer has certainly not said anything anywhere near as right-wing as, say, even Ed Miliband on it, and in fact has taken a number of notable pro-immigration stands as Blair says in the post above me.

As for (Tony) Blair, I think you’re taking a massively superficial, online leftist view of his government, but that’s tangential to the main topic at hand.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Is this not overtly to the right of basically the entire US Democratic Party?

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

So, uh, what exactly has happened to the Labour Party in the past few years? I don't mean the immediate aftermath of Corbyn being replaced--all that was expected--but a total surrender of nearly everything Labour historically stood for to an extent not seen since the Blair years. Starmer has come out against nationalizations (which have overwhelming public support), against increased public spending (and also against tax hikes, if the concern is over deficits), and is seemingly trying to out-Tory the Tories on immigration and trans rights. What, outside of maybe climate commitments, distinguishes Starmer from Sunak at this point?

My best guess is that Starmer is afraid of doing anything that could jeopardize Labour's massive polling lead, but playing Thomas Dewey and promising absolutely nothing to anyone is exactly how you lose that polling lead by next year.

It’s also not a defence (as it was appalling) but the Wilson Government iirc changed the law to stop British passport holders from Kenya arriving in the U.K.- the party has never been particularly progressive on migration!

It's kind of morbiduly funny that in Callaghan claims that he had to act in extreme speed to change the law after the Kenyan Indians found a loophole. Apparently according to him holding a british passport was a loophole.

[CumbrianLefty]

What is this, a very online US leftist has a wildly erroneous impression of Starmer's Labour?

Must be another day with "day" in it

[All Along The Watchtower]

a total surrender of nearly everything Labour historically stood for to an extent not seen since the Blair years.

Well yes, hardline anti-Communism doesn't make sense in a post-1980s world.

[CumbrianLefty]

a total surrender of nearly everything Labour historically stood for to an extent not seen since the Blair years.

Well yes, hardline anti-Communism doesn't make sense in a post-1980s world.

Top class snark there

[Blair]

Party fundraising figure are out and Labour raised £47 million; even with inflation that is rather a lot of money.

[CumbrianLefty]

The usual suspects complaining about this just like they do with everything else.

[Coldstream]

I’m heading up to Rutherglen in the next few weeks. Each regions being made to send someone - which I guess means we are taking it seriously. Still not 100% sure whether it’ll be a back room deal (since I’m very conspicuously English) but I’m interested to see how Scottish Labour are fairing & what the response is like.

[Coldstream]

Any of our other posters here heading up? Would be interesting to compare notes from the doorstep.

[JimJamUK]

This seems like unnecessarily boxing yourself in (particularly on income and property taxes)

https://twitter.com/hugogye/status/1695539358743314505?s=61&t=I1DE8_cg7gmZrc...

[CumbrianLefty]

Ah, but the word "plans" - isn't that a dead giveaway?

Plans which could be scrapped in week one with the age old "things are even worse than we thought" gambit - its not as if that hasn't happened in pretty recent memory or anything.

No, this doesn't mean Reeves and Starmer are simply lying (I do expect at least some of what she is saying there to be maintained) but it does overlook the reality that they will have much more room to do stuff in government than many are currently assuming.

As pointed out in a very good piece by Jonn Elledge just the other day.

[kaoras]

I don't really get why some people get so upsted about people not liking Starmer when you keep having to tell yourselves that "Don't worry, actually Starmer and his team are shameless liars" every time something like this comes out.

Like, I know exactly how it feels to have no real choice but support Y because the alternative is so horrifically tearing the country apart, but I don't *actually* like the Chilean left you know...

[Pericles]

I can say that a 24 point win was not enough for NZ Labour to 'unbox' themselves from those types of promises so they both have not made transformative change and just a few years later are about to get thrown out anyway (perhaps even because they did not do enough on cost of living and public services seem to have gotten worse not better). I hope you're right that UK politics operate a lot differently. Really though, I am pretty sceptical that Starmer has a good idea how to improve the UK, winning the 2024 election is not a governance plan.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Ah, but the word "plans" - isn't that a dead giveaway?

To the extent that there's a story here - and there isn't really as it's no different to what has been the line for quite a while - it is the continued careful refusal to turn 'we have no plans to do this' into 'we pledge not to'. Present rates of income tax are, of course, still higher than they were in 1997 when Labour made an absolute pledge not to raise them. Doesn't mean that the intention is to raise them (the hope will be that greater economic growth will mean there's little need) but there's deliberate wriggle-room there if it turns out to be necessary. If it does come to it, then they will just blame the previous government for making a mess of things.*

But it's worth noting that it has been a very long time indeed since Labour went into an election promising significant tax rises, and even back in the old days (when most people did not pay income tax and so it was politically much easier to do it) the pledges were always a little hazy. Despite the massive increases in public spending proposed in the 2019 manifesto, for instance, all that was proposed as far as income tax was concerned was fiddling with the bands to bring more people into the 40% rate and to increase the 45% rate to 50%, and proposals on other taxes were very woolly.

_{*Of course one extra form of de facto wealth tax is already proposed and has been mentioned enough that it isn't purely policy for symbolic reasons, which you do always have to watch with anything related to private education.}

[Zinneke]

If Starmer and Reeves tackled the real issue of land reform and insisted on taxing that form of wealth rather than income, I'd be sympathetic. I think I speak for many progressives when I say I have no issue with a CEO who gets up early in the morning not being overtaxed but I do have issue with property developers, speculators and lords using sitting capital to deform markets. The real inequality in Britain is land-based. Weirdly enough Theresa May was the only to be honest about that, because she is fundamentally more of a ln honest person. But the real elites at the Telegraph and co that Reeves sucks up to now just labelled it a "dementia tax" and the spin was enough to force a humiliation.

They won't because they want to be part of the toff elite, not deconstruct it. And luckily they have enablers on line giving convaluted explanations for them.

A sad opportunity missed unless the Labour opposition immediately convert to a Georgist platform. A couple of planning permission relaxations won't solve real wealth inequality in a society like the UK where very few people own a huge amount of land.

[Wiswylfen]

If Starmer and Reeves tackled the real issue of land reform and insisted on taxing that form of wealth rather than income, I'd be sympathetic. I think I speak for many progressives when I say I have no issue with a CEO who gets up early in the morning not being overtaxed but I do have issue with property developers, speculators and lords using sitting capital to deform markets. The real inequality in Britain is land-based. Weirdly enough Theresa May was the only to be honest about that, because she is fundamentally more of a ln honest person. But the real elites at the Telegraph and co that Reeves sucks up to now just labelled it a "dementia tax" and the spin was enough to force a humiliation.

They won't because they want to be part of the toff elite, not deconstruct it. And luckily they have enablers on line giving convaluted explanations for them.

A sad opportunity missed unless the Labour opposition immediately convert to a Georgist platform. A couple of planning permission relaxations won't solve real wealth inequality in a society like the UK where very few people own a huge amount of land.

We should expropriate the Percy family.

[CumbrianLefty]

I don't really get why some people get so upsted about people not liking Starmer when you keep having to tell yourselves that "Don't worry, actually Starmer and his team are shameless liars" every time something like this comes out.

But the reasoning of leftists like yourself appears to be "Starmer is a horrific shameless liar, *except* when he (or his trusted sidekicks like Reeves) say stuff to the right wing media to placate them - on these occasions, and these alone, he is telling nothing but the TOTAL UNVARNISHED TRUTH".

You don't have to be a blind, naively trusting optimist to see the possible flaws in this.

The really depressing thing could be that some degree of subterfuge has become necessary for even centre left parties to get elected - deal with the causes of *that*, and we may be getting somewhere.

[kaoras]

I don't really get why some people get so upsted about people not liking Starmer when you keep having to tell yourselves that "Don't worry, actually Starmer and his team are shameless liars" every time something like this comes out.

But the reasoning of leftists like yourself appears to be "Starmer is a horrific shameless liar, *except* when he (or his trusted sidekicks like Reeves) say stuff to the right wing media to placate them - on these occasions, and these alone, he is telling nothing but the TOTAL UNVARNISHED TRUTH".

You don't have to be a blind, naively trusting optimist to see the possible flaws in this.

The really depressing thing could be that some degree of subterfuge has become necessary for even centre left parties to get elected - deal with the causes of *that*, and we may be getting somewhere.

I (and most of the "leftists like myself" I assume) think that Starmer and co. are telling the truth and that's why we are so appalled by his "plans". You are the one saying that he is actually lying. 

[Zinneke]

He did blatantly lie - during his leadership campaign.

[Silent Hunter]

Ah, but the word "plans" - isn't that a dead giveaway?

To the extent that there's a story here - and there isn't really as it's no different to what has been the line for quite a while - it is the continued careful refusal to turn 'we have no plans to do this' into 'we pledge not to'. Present rates of income tax are, of course, still higher than they were in 1997 when Labour made an absolute pledge not to raise them.

Top rate was 40% for most of the government; Brown put it up to 50% for the final year in government, which was then reduced to 45%.

[Blair]

I don't get this - wealth tax is broadly popular (I pretty much support it) and doesn't rock the boat like nationalisation would. Just say nothing and don't annoy people.

FWIW the mansion tax debacle left some scars on the party; it was a relatively benign & soft form of a wealth tax but it was quite toxic in the outer london marginals and imho probably played into the results we saw in 2015.

[CumbrianLefty]

I don't get this - wealth tax is broadly popular (I pretty much support it) and doesn't rock the boat like nationalisation would. Just say nothing and don't annoy people.

FWIW the mansion tax debacle left some scars on the party; it was a relatively benign & soft form of a wealth tax but it was quite toxic in the outer london marginals and imho probably played into the results we saw in 2015.

It was toxic, of course, because of the cynical and mendacious media campaign against it - which had nothing to do (honest!) with those people being just the types who would be affected by one.

These were the times when the dread term "aspiration" was still chucked around like confetti.

[Blair]

I don't get this - wealth tax is broadly popular (I pretty much support it) and doesn't rock the boat like nationalisation would. Just say nothing and don't annoy people.

FWIW the mansion tax debacle left some scars on the party; it was a relatively benign & soft form of a wealth tax but it was quite toxic in the outer london marginals and imho probably played into the results we saw in 2015.

It was toxic, of course, because of the cynical and mendacious media campaign against it - which had nothing to do (honest!) with those people being just the types who would be affected by one.

These were the times when the dread term "aspiration" was still chucked around like confetti.

Yes in the same way that a lot of people think they will have to pay the ULEZ! It’s part of the reason why imv the temptation and current approach is just to leave the thresholds and push loads of people into a higher rate of tax rather than increasing a new tax.

I remember in 2019 someone complained on the doorstep that labour would increase his taxes as he earnt his income via a dividend!

[CumbrianLefty]

I don't get this - wealth tax is broadly popular (I pretty much support it) and doesn't rock the boat like nationalisation would. Just say nothing and don't annoy people.

FWIW the mansion tax debacle left some scars on the party; it was a relatively benign & soft form of a wealth tax but it was quite toxic in the outer london marginals and imho probably played into the results we saw in 2015.

It was toxic, of course, because of the cynical and mendacious media campaign against it - which had nothing to do (honest!) with those people being just the types who would be affected by one.

These were the times when the dread term "aspiration" was still chucked around like confetti.

Yes in the same way that a lot of people think they will have to pay the ULEZ! It’s part of the reason why imv the temptation and current approach is just to leave the thresholds and push loads of people into a higher rate of tax rather than increasing a new tax.

I remember in 2019 someone complained on the doorstep that labour would increase his taxes as he earnt his income via a dividend!

Indeed, but quite a few of those are just about to find out they actually won't.

Wonder how that might affect things?