I thought this Twitter thread from Ben Ansell well worth sharing here:
At this point the focus was on housing, and I am not sure I need to share that data.
This was Ben's conclusion:
I think the consequences are staggering.
There is little indication the Tories can win an election on this basis.
But more importantly, where are their new members to come from, or their MPs, or come to that, their funders? And where is there support hoping to be as higher education levels increase over the age ranges?
It's as if their whole model has been debunked by teaching people how the world actually works and that education is now reaching the point where a majority are persuaded.
It's just a shame that as yet Labour has no alternative.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
It’s that last point, that Labour has no alternative, that worries me 🙁
There are alternatives, but Kier Starmer and Rachel Reeves do not appear interested in any of them and would rather stick to the old neo-liberal economic narrative and the Conservative spending plans. This was the poison pill that held back progress in the first Labour term after 1997.
Someone needs to remind Starmer about the pledges he gave when he was elected as Labour leader and ask which of his principles he has abandoned and why. Does he still believe in maintaining Labour’s “radical values” and the “moral case for socialism”?
https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/
Why does he accept the handcuffs presented to him by his opponents? Does he think he faces a more difficult situation than Attlee in 1945?
I wish I knew the answers to those questions
“It’s just a shame that as yet Labour has no alternative.”
Given what passes for “thinking” within Liebore, (anf given the statements from Reeves) they are functionally incapable of offering alternatives. They are no different to a gov’ that proposes a space programme and starts with the statement: “let’s assume/pretend we have an anti-gravity drive”. They have locked themselves into a tory trajectory which means that “their alternative” will be a fictional alternative, they will pretend that they offer an alternative – but when examined critically it will be no alternative at all. Same old, same old.
The problem with having a Bank of England person as shadow chancellor is you get Bank of England thinking
To be fair to Rachel Reeves she was at least talking about a proper economic growth plan based on the retro fitting of housing across the UK to improve their insulation, thus reducing energy consumption, plus investing in renewable technologies on a scale not even imagined by the Tories, who seem to be only thinking about Sizewell B,C? which is specific to one small area of the UK, will come into operation in about 20 years time and which relies on mostly foreign investment (EDF for heavens sake). The plans RR outlined would create a huge expansion of SMEs across the UK and would surely create a much quicker and more encompassing economic uplift.
But did she explain funding?
That Rachel Reeves proposal is a watered down version of Corbyn’s central proposal ref 2019 Labour manifesto for a major new green industry in insulation and renovation of the national housing stock. Doubt there’s anyone left in that now anodyne Party with the nouse to develop it.
The Greens have a similar encompassing policy but for some incomprehensible reason they always get dismissed as irrelevant.
At some point the UK is going to have to realise it has the draughtiest leakiest housing in Europe that wastefully leaks energy from every pore.
Mr Maugham,
I haven’t heard either Conservative or Labour talking about the requirement to address the failure of the fake UK domestic energy ‘market’ that has compounded the energy problem and caused such chaos for consumers; who do not know how it works; or that their ‘energy supplier’ who does not supply them with energy, or anything at all, other than an invoice. Domestic consumers are really provided with energy by the energy providers (who are making so much, they have – too late – attracted a foot-dragging windfall tax). Providers that under the absurdity of this phony market, consumers did not even know existed. It is quite literally a scandal.
The ‘market’ requires, urgently to be abolished and replaced by a system that recognises that domestic energy provision is – as an unavoidable fact of life – a monopoly.
It adds credence to the worries we have concerning voter registration and other gerrymandering ideas the Tories and their rich backers are know only too well to use.
Agreed
Labour ‘had’ a vision! But the authoritarian centrists now in control just want power & haven’t thought much beyond that… So very worrying…
Very interesting.
I think that the Over fifties – Under fifties difference is currently just about the correct dividing line between a time when most people grew up in a household that read a daily newspaper and more recent times when increasingly most people do not read a newspaper.
Currently, of our two most read newspapers the Daily Mail reaches less than one million people and the Sun’s circulation figures are so disastrous it refuses to publish them. Even more encouragingly, their circulations are still rapidly falling.
On the negative side the Broadcast media still treats the talking points of these right-wing propaganda sheets as if they reflected the real issues and views of the nation.
Now the fight has moved to Social Media but, if the charts above and the American mid-terms are anything to go by, there is some hope that Far right billionaires are finding it much harder to brainwash the majority of people via that route.
I hope you are right
Mr Langston,
“On the negative side the Broadcast media still treats the talking points of these right-wing propaganda sheets as if they reflected the real issues and views of the nation.”
This is a very important point. My hypothesis has long been is that traditional public service broadcasters have a commitment to “impartiality”. How do they do that in politics and news in the real world. Most crucially in selectiing the news ‘Agenda’ and how it is framed for the public. How do they actually do that, beyond the abstract statement of intent.
Not by choosing the news Agenda and the framing of debate for themselves. Because they require to establish their impartiality, measured outside themselves. They can only do that by comparing themselves with a third party standard. That standard they establish follows the lead of the traditional mainstream press; the Daily Mail, Telegraph, Express, Sun, Guardian, Daily Mirror; predominantly owned and serving the interests of neoliberal, Conservative billionaires. Hence there are news programmes that actually discuss the Press headlines (a form of promotional advertising), and not only are journalists/editors from these newspapers constantly on public service news and current affairs programmes, and an employment revolving door between the broadcast news room and press newsrooms. The broadcast political and news impartiality Agenda is set effectively by the vested interests backing major political parties.
Sidebar – Paul – are you the Paul Langston I worked with in Berkshire CC many (many) moons ago…?
Expect the Tories to indulge in yet more immigrant bashing and “culture” wars to try to boost their support
I’ve always wanted to voting system to change to (amongst other reasons) more accurately reflect when people vote for smaller parties. I would have thought seeing the recent polling numbers would galvanise the conservatives into supporting such policies, but then they never did seem very good at forward planning. Had we a voting system that allowed for this, then the need for a decent “alternative” wouldn’t be as big a problem as smaller parties could still have a chance at their voice and alternative policies being heard, which would keep the bigger incumbent parties on their toes.
Starmer’s caution is frustrating, but undeniably effective right now. And witness the near-total unity within the PLP. They are giving nothing for the Tories or their media to take aim at, which is leaving even the rightwing press no option but to turn on the Tories instead.
I’m far to the left of Starmer, but I suspect that there’s a key difference between him and Blair in 1997. Whereas both are innately cautious/moderates, Blair inherited a benign economy, and faced no urgent pressure to instigate radical reform. Starmer doesn’t have that comfort zone to operate in.
My hunch is that by necessity, he will have to become far more radical once in power than he appears to be now. Not least because unless he introduces PR, he will be at the mercy of FPTP and the wrath of an electorate who – given the residual Tory streak in England – will only indulge Labour for one term unless they rapidly fix the problems left by the Tories.
Circumstances will force a radicalism that Starmer has no need to display just yet.
I can assure you there is no unity in the PLP
Nit amongst those I talk to
This strategy is dire because there is no strategy at all
The light at the end of the tunnel. However, as you indicate, it might not be much different on the outside.