'Cold, cynical and paranoid: if this is Labour in opposition..

[Nearly Sane]

By being competent in government - and given that Starmer has turned a disorganised, squabbling rabble trounced in the polls into what appears to be a well run, competent party in opposition in a pretty short time I think there is a good chance they will be competent in government.

And by having sensible and pragmatic policies - in other words that will work rather than being driven primarily by ideology rather than pragmatism.

Ultimately we won't know until they've been elected and been in office for a few years, but the omens look promising.

Put 'not' in front of that and tell me that's the aim of any party. What are they going to do to achieve that?

[Outrider]

Same questions right back at you. How cpntrolling are you willing to be? At what stage does it become just abput groupthink? What boundaries are you willing to accept?

I've not seen much that worries me, so far. I'm not sure where I'd set a limit, but I've not seen anyone approaching a point where I'd have qualms at the moment.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Put 'not' in front of that and tell me that's the aim of any party.

Not really sure what you mean.

But we've had complete incompetence in government for years - the ideologically-driven 'austerity' of the early Cameron years that stopped the recovery from the global crash dead in its tracks.

The complete own goal of brexit - I mean what kind of incompetence puts something to a referendum that they don't want to do.

The ideology of the brexit red lines rather than a pragmatic 'stay close to the EU' but outside the EU response to the referendum

The corruption and 'one rule for the little people, another for us elites' that was allowed to develop just below the surface, enabled by covid.

Truss!!!!

Simply having some level of competence would be a good starting point.

[Outrider]

Except that I'm not sure I'd call it cynical at all, unless you think wanting to win an election is cynical and wanting to have a disciplined and supportive parliamentary party around you in government is cynical.

Given that the two extremes are the egalitarian open door policy and the cynical individual central selection, the move is towards the cynical; it's pragmatic by motivation, but it's a move in the cynical direction from a fairly idealistic starting point, I think.

Given the record of the past 13 years I think we desperately need the kind of professionalism and discipline that we saw exhibited by the Labour party in the run up to 1997.

Just, perhaps, not the political cynicism in policies

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

I've not seen much that worries me, so far. I'm not sure where I'd set a limit, but I've not seen anyone approaching a point where I'd have qualms at the moment.

O.

I agree - and I think there have been some refreshing moments where it would be easier to throw some 'red meat' to the activists but Labour have resisted.

A good example (yet completely overshadowed by Boris on Friday) was the announcement that green investment would be taped in, rather than committing to the spending £28B a year from day one. This is just sensible - anyone who knows anything about major project/infrastructure spending knows that you cannot simply 'turn on' the tap and spend. From the point when you launch the plan there will be significant lead in for project development, approval, planning etc etc. So had they committed to spending from day one they'd have ended up having to explain why spending had 'slipped to the right'. Better to pragmatically recognise that it will take a little time for the projects and their spending to ramp up. Also sensible economically as this means borrowing a little later which is less likely to frighten the markets particularly as borrowing costs are likely to be drifting down by then.

[Nearly Sane]

Not really sure what you mean.

But we've had complete incompetence in government for years - the ideologically-driven 'austerity' of the early Cameron years that stopped the recovery from the global crash dead in its tracks.

The complete own goal of brexit - I mean what kind of incompetence puts something to a referendum that they don't want to do.

The ideology of the brexit red lines rather than a pragmatic 'stay close to the EU' but outside the EU response to the referendum

The corruption and 'one rule for the little people, another for us elites' that was allowed to develop just below the surface, enabled by covid.

Truss!!!!

Simply having some level of competence would be a good starting point.

If you state a wish/policy and then say that is thr aim of the party, and if you then put 'not' in the sentence and you find it doesn't differentiate the party from any others, it's useless. The Tories don't have a policy of being incompetent and running the economy badly. That they are doesn't mean voting for someone else means you get anything better. You've already disparaged the Labour leader bit one as being useless.

What is the Labour Party going to do that will achieve the goals? Where is the measure of competence in Labour?

[ProfessorDavey]

Given that the two extremes are the egalitarian open door policy and the cynical individual central selection, the move is towards the cynical; it's pragmatic by motivation, but it's a move in the cynical direction from a fairly idealistic starting point, I think.

I'm not sure they'd see it that way - I imagine the leadership will see it, first and foremost, as about getting the very best candidates in place - talented, without baggage that will come back to haunt and also diverse. Of course it is likely that they will also consider that the best candidates are likely to be those who more closely share the political leanings of the leadership, but I don't think that's a particularly difficult thing to justify.

But remember - this will only come into play for winnable seats where there isn't a sitting MP, wanting to stand again and 'un-triggered'. So this will never be a revolution, just an evolution in the parliamentary party.

[ProfessorDavey]

The Tories don't have a policy of being incompetent and running the economy badly.

They might not state it, but that's what they do because they are ideologically driven in that direction.

But you seem to be implying that the only thing that matters is your ideology - I disagree. Whether you are any good is a key factor. It is no use having a party that says they want the NHS to run effectively but is incapable of doing it. Competence matters.

[Nearly Sane]

They might not state it, but that's what they do because they are ideologically driven in that direction.

But you seem to be implying that the only thing that matters is your ideology - I disagree. Whether you are any good is a key factor. It is no use having a party that says they want the NHS to run effectively but is incapable of doing it. Competence matters.

Your laughable ideology is showing. You think that the Tories are in their own beliefs committed to running the economy badly?

[ProfessorDavey]

What is the Labour Party going to do that will achieve the goals? Where is the measure of competence in Labour?

They may be a shambles in office.

But they've not been a shambles in opposition in the past 3 years. That they have been effective in opposition at least gives some confidence that they may also be effective and competent in government.

How else are you going to measure competence in an opposition other than whether they have been successful as an opposition - which I think is beyond doubt.

[Nearly Sane]

They might not state it, but that's what they do because they are ideologically driven in that direction.

But you seem to be implying that the only thing that matters is your ideology - I disagree. Whether you are any good is a key factor. It is no use having a party that says they want the NHS to run effectively but is incapable of doing it. Competence matters.

I will just note that in the post you quotemined from, ome of the bits you removed was this 'What is the Labour Party going to do that will achieve the goals? Where is the measure of competence in Labour?'

So no answer and a misrepresentation. Well done, you!

[ProfessorDavey]

You think that the Tories are in their own beliefs committed to running the economy badly?

I think that the tories who have been running the show recently are ideologically committed to small state, laisse faire economics - you know the markets know best, tax cuts for the rich will trickle down.

So I think that the tory mantra recently is that they don't think they should be running the economy at all - that's the job of the free market. So ideologically they act too little, too late at which point far more draconian measures are required than a little nudge on the tiller in a properly managed way.

[Nearly Sane]

They may be a shambles in office.

But they've not been a shambles in opposition in the past 3 years. That they have been effective in opposition at least gives some confidence that they may also be effective and competent in government.

How else are you going to measure competence in an opposition other than whether they have been successful as an opposition - which I think is beyond doubt.

Where is the evidence of competence as govt? Your 'logic' seems to say competence is shown by votes by which party is elected/is likely to be elected. So you think that from 2008 to 2019, the Tories were much more competent at beong in govt, and as that is most important to you, I have tp assume you voted for them. 

[Nearly Sane]

I think that the tories who have been running the show recently are ideologically committed to small state, laisse faire economics - you know the markets know best, tax cuts for the rich will trickle down.

So I think that the tory mantra recently is that they don't think they should be running the economy at all - that's the job of the free market. So ideologically they act too little, too late at which point far more draconian measures are required than a little nudge on the tiller in a properly managed way.

Yes, I get you disagree on some policies. That doesn't mean they are aiming to run the economy badly deliberately which was your position.

[ProfessorDavey]

I will just note that in the post you quotemined from, ome of the bits you removed was this 'What is the Labour Party going to do that will achieve the goals? Where is the measure of competence in Labour?'

Which I responded to in reply 34.

So no answer ...

Yup my answer is plain as day in reply 34.

and a misrepresentation. Well done, you!

Nope - no misrepresentation. Your reply 30 had two parts - one referring to the tories the other to labour. I chose to reply to each bit separately. We aren't obliged to reply to disparate points in one person's comments in a single post, don't you know.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, I get you disagree on some policies. That doesn't mean they are aiming to run the economy badly deliberately which was your position.

Actually it isn't my point at all, indeed almost the opposite of my point. My point is that competence matters - you are correct that political parties are unlikely to aim to be incompetent - but some may well be and in some cases that is because they focus too much on idealogy and not enough on pragmatic competence.

And where that leads is to look beyond just the ideological differences, but also to the evidence of competence - both of the government and of the opposition. Currently I think we have a government which is pretty incompetent, largely because it is unable to govern as it is tearing itself apart. This has been going on since the referendum. I think we have an opposition which currently looks pretty competent, which is a massive turnaround from 2016-2020 when the opposition was a basket case.

And just so you recognise this isn't purely party political - I think the Cameron opposition of 2015-2010 also looked pretty competent (albeit some of their ideology I didn't like). Broadly I think the government also remained pretty competent through this period - certainly it looked pretty effective at dealing with the major shock of the global crash.

[Nearly Sane]

Actually it isn't my point at all, indeed almost the opposite of my point. My point is that competence matters - you are correct that political parties are unlikely to aim to be incompetent - but some may well be and in some cases that is because they focus too much on idealogy and not enough on pragmatic competence.

And where that leads is to look beyond just the ideological differences, but also to the evidence of competence - both of the government and of the opposition. Currently I think we have a government which is pretty incompetent, largely because it is unable to govern as it is tearing itself apart. This has been going on since the referendum. I think we have an opposition which currently looks pretty competent, which is a massive turnaround from 2016-2020 when the opposition was a basket case.

And just so you recognise this isn't purely party political - I think the Cameron opposition of 2015-2010 also looked pretty competent (albeit some of their ideology I didn't like). Broadly I think the government also remained pretty competent through this period - certainly it looked pretty effective at dealing with the major shock of the global crash.

So an aim to be competent is no differentiator between parties
 Good, thank you for agreeing with me.

What are the Labour party going to do which will make a difference?

[ProfessorDavey]

So an aim to be competent is no differentiator between parties

But actually being competent may be a massive differentiator between parties.

What are the Labour party going to do which will make a difference?

Having had years of incompetence (forget the ideology) having a government that is actually able to govern competently will be a huge start.

Where I think there will be major differences?

Well first - green economy - I think Labour are actually committed to it, and not just for the climate, but also as the best way to drive growth, jobs etc - which interestingly will naturally roll out across the country, rather than the tories convoluted 'levelling up'.

Secondly on migration - to me the big issue is how long it takes for processing (and it is always the process that gets you on appeal, not the decision) - I think Labour will properly invest in the stuff that matters (people to process claims) not in wastefully spending millions keeping people housed at tax payer expense while processing takes years. The non-sense unworkable 'red meat' policies e.g. Rwanda will be quietly dropped.

I agree on VAT on private school fees. It is hard to argue that if the government provide universal state-funded places for all children that a private school place isn't a 'luxury'. And I see no reason why private schools cannot absorb this as they increased fees way above inflation over the past decade or so. They will just have to have a ceasefire on the arm-race of throwing money at unnecessary facilities to compete. Sure no-one is going to send their kid to a school with only five brand new Steinway grand pianos are they (real story from friend of mine who is a private school bursar).

Proper windfall tax on energy.

So that's just a few.

But the most important thing that a government needs to do when there is a change from one party to another is to change the agenda. That is, frankly, the most important thing a new Labour government needs to do as that is the key to being in power for two (or more) rather than just one term.