2024 General Election Thread

[Tredman]

Aside from this totally not being how govt spending works, lets pretend for a second that it is. Cutting spending is a right wing solution to holes in public finances, raising taxes would be a left wing one.


Left wingers are usually internationalists so see people as being separated by class rather than borders. They would talk up the benefits of immigration and argue that the best way to stop movement of people would be to address the issues that force people to move such as economics or violence. You can disagree with this position, but that's a separate argument.

Indeed. But they're not looking to reverse it and you won't hear any of the Labour big hitters blame Brexit for anything either. Also, you'll note the amount of Union Jacks and references to Britain in Labour communications. Not a lefty thing.

Would Elphicke have crossed the floor with Corbyn as leader? Unlikely.

Biggest donors at the moment are apartheid boycott busting Gary Lubner and Lord Sainsbury. Sainsbury stopped donating during Corbyn's time and in 2019 donated to the famously left wing Liberal Democrats.

The world isn't exactly unrecognisable from the one that existed a whole 4 years ago. In any case, Starmer didn't just abandon some of his pledges - he fucked them all off. He might make the (bogus) argument that Ukraine and Covid had an impact on finances but he's also abandoned his pledge to abolish the House of Lords. Another one was 'defend free movement as we leave the EU' - binned. He's also scrapped his pledge to raise tax on the top 5% of earners.


Indeed. I wonder how much of a shit the climate, the homeless and hungry children give a shit about his fiscal rules.

Why, given you are the only person who seems to understand how government finances work, are you not running for election?

 

[PuntsWolf]

Aside from this totally not being how govt spending works, lets pretend for a second that it is. Cutting spending is a right wing solution to holes in public finances, raising taxes would be a left wing one.


Left wingers are usually internationalists so see people as being separated by class rather than borders. They would talk up the benefits of immigration and argue that the best way to stop movement of people would be to address the issues that force people to move such as economics or violence. You can disagree with this position, but that's a separate argument.

Indeed. But they're not looking to reverse it and you won't hear any of the Labour big hitters blame Brexit for anything either. Also, you'll note the amount of Union Jacks and references to Britain in Labour communications. Not a lefty thing.

Would Elphicke have crossed the floor with Corbyn as leader? Unlikely.

Biggest donors at the moment are apartheid boycott busting Gary Lubner and Lord Sainsbury. Sainsbury stopped donating during Corbyn's time and in 2019 donated to the famously left wing Liberal Democrats.

The world isn't exactly unrecognisable from the one that existed a whole 4 years ago. In any case, Starmer didn't just abandon some of his pledges - he fucked them all off. He might make the (bogus) argument that Ukraine and Covid had an impact on finances but he's also abandoned his pledge to abolish the House of Lords. Another one was 'defend free movement as we leave the EU' - binned. He's also scrapped his pledge to raise tax on the top 5% of earners.


Indeed. I wonder how much of a shit the climate, the homeless and hungry children give a shit about his fiscal rules.

Raising taxes isn’t a vote winner! You’re pissing off people who may vote for you.

Same for reversing Brexit.

Not entirely sure how you solve violence and the economy of every country in the world either.

 

[Del Woppio]

Aside from this totally not being how govt spending works, lets pretend for a second that it is. Cutting spending is a right wing solution to holes in public finances, raising taxes would be a left wing one.


Left wingers are usually internationalists so see people as being separated by class rather than borders. They would talk up the benefits of immigration and argue that the best way to stop movement of people would be to address the issues that force people to move such as economics or violence. You can disagree with this position, but that's a separate argument.

Indeed. But they're not looking to reverse it and you won't hear any of the Labour big hitters blame Brexit for anything either. Also, you'll note the amount of Union Jacks and references to Britain in Labour communications. Not a lefty thing.

Would Elphicke have crossed the floor with Corbyn as leader? Unlikely.

Biggest donors at the moment are apartheid boycott busting Gary Lubner and Lord Sainsbury. Sainsbury stopped donating during Corbyn's time and in 2019 donated to the famously left wing Liberal Democrats.

The world isn't exactly unrecognisable from the one that existed a whole 4 years ago. In any case, Starmer didn't just abandon some of his pledges - he fucked them all off. He might make the (bogus) argument that Ukraine and Covid had an impact on finances but he's also abandoned his pledge to abolish the House of Lords. Another one was 'defend free movement as we leave the EU' - binned. He's also scrapped his pledge to raise tax on the top 5% of earners.


Indeed. I wonder how much of a shit the climate, the homeless and hungry children give a shit about his fiscal rules.

You're arguing a point I haven't made. I haven't said he's left wing, I've said he's not right wing. There's this bit in the middle, see, can't remember what it's called though.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

To criticise the current Labour stance on Brexit (to reiterate - I'd cancel the whole fucking thing and wind the clock back to 2015 as far as is practically possible, it's a dreadful idea fundamentally conceived by dreadful people) when you also think Jeremy "Jobs First Brexit", "7 out of 10 on the EU" Corbyn who did NOTHING for the Remain campaign when it mattered had it right is a bit strange.

 

[Del Woppio]

Quite. There's a strong argument to say that if Starmer was LOTO back then that the result would've been different imo

 

[Templeton Peck]

Raising taxes isn’t a vote winner! You’re pissing off people who may vote for you.

Same for reversing Brexit.

Not entirely sure how you solve violence and the economy of every country in the world either.

Different arguments to the point being made.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Starmer, Burnham, Cooper, take your pick.

Beardo decided to fight battles that were last a thing in about 1982 though.

 

[Templeton Peck]

Why, given you are the only person who seems to understand how government finances work, are you not running for election?

You're contributions always add so much to the debate.

 

[pr0sl0]

Quite. There's a strong argument to say that if Starmer was LOTO back then that the result would've been different imo

I think this idea that Corbyn doing fuck all during the Brexit campaign swung it for Leave is pretty overblown, IMO, but I really don't see Starmer as being a particularly good campaigner in that context either.

His whole thing is being boring and competent, it was a referendum launched in response to right populist pressure on the Tories and it was a very heated (to say the least - RIP Jo Cox) campaign, much more about competing interpretations and stances on ideals and ideologies (patriotism, multiculturalism, sovereignty, etc) than it was about putting out different policy positions or whatever.

And even before that, Corbyn became leader because the mainstream of Labour had become so utterly discredited after the 2015 election - there were no big ideas within the parliamentary party other than chasing the Tory and UKIP lead on reducing immigration and cracking down on benefits while failing to still actually convince anyone of the sincerity of those stances. (Why vote for the diet version of what the Tories were offering anyway?) I don't see any of the other leadership candidates from the 2015 contest doing much better than a hypothetical Starmer either as a result, other than maaaaaaybe Burnham, but that's assuming his reinvention as a bit of a left populist since becoming GM mayor reflects how he was all along, rather than another bit of post-Brexit/Corbyn triangulation from someone who was just as much a student of the New Labour heavyweights as, say, Yvette Cooper.

 

[Del Woppio]

Different arguments to the point being made.

The tax burden is massive as we know - there isn't the room or the public appetite to increase any of the big three

That's the first thing I said?

 

[Dire Wolf]

Raising taxes isn’t a vote winner! You’re pissing off people who may vote for you.

Same for reversing Brexit.

Not entirely sure how you solve violence and the economy of every country in the world either.

That depends on who you raise the taxes for. Raise it for the very high earners and you're probably not affecting a Labour vote very much at all I would think.

 

[pr0sl0]

Raising taxes isn’t a vote winner! You’re pissing off people who may vote for you.

Same for reversing Brexit.

Not entirely sure how you solve violence and the economy of every country in the world either.

There's a lot of polling around showing that there are clear majorities for raising taxes now, because it's very obvious that public services need more funding.

I wouldn't expect that positivity to survive for very long - no more than a couple of years, if I had to guess - however, unless those services did see noticeable improvements quickly, and even then it wouldn't be guaranteed. (Eg could see a "we've done one last heave to get the ship right, now we can cut back again" message resonating from the Tories/Reform/whatever hybrid mutant emerges post July 4th.)

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

I think this idea that Corbyn doing fuck all during the Brexit campaign swung it for Leave is pretty overblown, IMO, but I really don't see Starmer as being a particularly good campaigner in that context either.

His whole thing is being boring and competent, it was a referendum launched in response to right populist pressure on the Tories and it was a very heated (to say the least - RIP Jo Cox) campaign, much more about competing interpretations and stances on ideals and ideologies (patriotism, multiculturalism, sovereignty, etc) than it was about putting out different policy positions or whatever.

And even before that, Corbyn became leader because the mainstream of Labour had become so utterly discredited after the 2015 election - there were no big ideas within the parliamentary party other than chasing the Tory and UKIP lead on reducing immigration and cracking down on benefits while failing to still actually convince anyone of the sincerity of those stances. (Why vote for the diet version of what the Tories were offering anyway?) I don't see any of the other leadership candidates from the 2015 contest doing much better than a hypothetical Starmer either as a result, other than maaaaaaybe Burnham, but that's assuming his reinvention as a bit of a left populist since becoming GM mayor reflects how he was all along, rather than another bit of post-Brexit/Corbyn triangulation from someone who was just as much a student of the New Labour heavyweights as, say, Yvette Cooper.

Without a doubt a huge factor was Cameron/Osborne determining early on that they wouldn't fight fire with fire with negative messaging and refused to call out the multiple, huge lies told by Vote Leave and Farage.

But Corbyn was as invisible and ineffectual as Seyi Olofinjana in a midfield scrap. To tip the scales 52/48 in the other direction wouldn't have taken much of a nudge IMO - something as simple as pointing out to deprived communities in South Wales/Cornwall (for example) that the EU had provided far more direct funding to them than Westminster in the last 20 years would have been very simple and likely very effective.

Also treating the SNP as allies rather than enemies on this issue for no reason would have seen the kind of swing in Scotland required to turn the result.

 

[PuntsWolf]

That depends on who you raise the taxes for. Raise it for the very high earners and you're probably not affecting a Labour vote very much at all I would think.

This is my point. Well off people are voting labour. Start telling them your taking another 5-10% and they won’t.

 

[Templeton Peck]

Without a doubt a huge factor was Cameron/Osborne determining early on that they wouldn't fight fire with fire with negative messaging and refused to call out the multiple, huge lies told by Vote Leave and Farage.

But Corbyn was as invisible and ineffectual as Seyi Olofinjana in a midfield scrap. To tip the scales 52/48 in the other direction wouldn't have taken much of a nudge IMO - something as simple as pointing out to deprived communities in South Wales/Cornwall (for example) that the EU had provided far more direct funding to them than Westminster in the last 20 years would have been very simple and likely very effective.

Also treating the SNP as allies rather than enemies on this issue for no reason would have seen the kind of swing in Scotland required to turn the result.

Brexit was absolutely fuck all to do with Corbyn. But I really can't be arsed getting into it again.

 

[Tony Towner]

It absolutely was, not the same culpability levels of Cameron, Farage and Johnson, but ultimately large swathes of Labour areas voted for something which was against their best interests and the leader of the Labour Party did absolutely fuck all to try and persuade them otherwise. Letting it be a vote against the Tory establishment

 

[prawnking]

Brexit was absolutely fuck all to do with Corbyn. But I really can't be arsed getting into it again.

Yep, I wouldn't bother, you'll only be right again

 

[pr0sl0]

Without a doubt a huge factor was Cameron/Osborne determining early on that they wouldn't fight fire with fire with negative messaging and refused to call out the multiple, huge lies told by Vote Leave and Farage.

But Corbyn was as invisible and ineffectual as Seyi Olofinjana in a midfield scrap. To tip the scales 52/48 in the other direction wouldn't have taken much of a nudge IMO - something as simple as pointing out to deprived communities in South Wales/Cornwall (for example) that the EU had provided far more direct funding to them than Westminster in the last 20 years would have been very simple and likely very effective.

Also treating the SNP as allies rather than enemies on this issue for no reason would have seen the kind of swing in Scotland required to turn the result.

It's always going to be one of those big what-ifs of British politics.

My own take on it is that Corbyn wasn't anywhere near enough of a known entity to have that kind of sway over the kinds of places you mention which did end up tilting towards Leave. As evidence, I'd point to the 2017 election result, which came about in large part because for most people - who can barely name any politicians beyond the prime minister and a couple of others in the cabinet, on average - that campaign was actually their first exposure to Corbyn and his politics, and they were surprised to find they liked what they saw/heard (relative to two years of relentlessly negative media coverage of mostly just Labour in-fighting).

The counterpoint to that is, of course, "well, maybe people would have been introduced to him earlier if he'd taken a more active role in the Brexit campaign," which isn't entirely without merit - but I just don't think it would have made a difference because his pro-Lexit history is so well-established, and his whole appeal was grounded in a kind of anti-New Labour authenticity. Switching to any kind of avidly pro-Remain stance during the campaign would have quickly seemed insincere - and in a campaign where many people were voting for Brexit as a way to stick it to the patronising elites, that insincerity could well have been more toxic and even less productive.

The only way he could have threaded that needle was probably to push a direct message along the lines of: "I'm no fan of the EU, but this would be a hard-right Brexit that locks in years and years of unfettered Thatcherism." Might have worked, but again, I'm sceptical that it would have moved the dial much either way.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

I'd argue that even if Dave n' Gid didn't want to call out Johnson and Farage (in particular) directly - he could have done, he had no skin in the game. "Don't listen to Boris, he's a liar, here's where he's lied before, here's where he's lying again".

 

[pr0sl0]

Yeah I think that's fair, and it would have mirrored what the Leave campaign had: Vote Leave were the official, respectable campaign putting out charts and graphs while Farage and his coterie in Leave.EU kept slinging out mud, and if Vote Leave were criticised for Leave.EU's messaging they could plausibly deny responsibility while still benefitting (which they absolutely did, and there obviously was a lot of crossover in terms of personnel between the two groups).

The Remain camp had, what, a post-2015 Lib Dem collapse Nick Clegg as their biggest advocate for the EU on an emotional level? Never going to end well.