What is the point of Labour?

[Nearly Sane]

Not going to repeal Tory immigration laws , not going to repeal Tory laws cracking down on protest, reneging on university tuition fees, no plans to do anything about Brexit, not standing up for striking public sector workers.

https://bylinetimes.com/2023/05/10/keir-starmer-wouldnt-repeal-morally-unacceptable-illegal-migration-bill/

[jeremyp]

Not going to repeal Tory immigration laws because it is not necessary when you are putting new laws in place.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not going to repeal Tory immigration laws because it is not necessary when you are putting new laws in place.

Exactly - and leaving the legal ability to do something doesn't mean that as a government you will actually use that ability.

The best way to ensure that the Tory immigration laws remain in place and are use is if there remains a Tory government rather than a Labour government after the election.

History suggests that to get elected as a new government you mustn't frighten the horses (Labour knew this in 1997 and the Tories knew it in 2010) and once in you change the political agenda. So Labour currently need to negate the 'soft of immigration' and 'will take us back into the EU' narrative that the tories and their media chums will pump out over the next year. However once in power (assuming they do) I have no doubt they'll reset the situation on immigration and substantially reset our relationship with the EU.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To oppose a Tory SNP coalition?

[Nearly Sane]

Exactly - and leaving the legal ability to do something doesn't mean that as a government you will actually use that ability.

The best way to ensure that the Tory immigration laws remain in place and are use is if there remains a Tory government rather than a Labour government after the election.

History suggests that to get elected as a new government you mustn't frighten the horses (Labour knew this in 1997 and the Tories knew it in 2010) and once in you change the political agenda. So Labour currently need to negate the 'soft of immigration' and 'will take us back into the EU' narrative that the tories and their media chums will pump out over the next year. However once in power (assuming they do) I have no doubt they'll reset the situation on immigration and substantially reset our relationship with the EU.

But leaving laws in place for independent agencies means they do have to apply them, or make a political choice not too. If you are happy with a govt politicising the police then you are part of the problem.

And you also seem happy with political parties lying about what they are going to do.

[SteveH]

Exactly - and leaving the legal ability to do something doesn't mean that as a government you will actually use that ability.

The best way to ensure that the Tory immigration laws remain in place and are use is if there remains a Tory government rather than a Labour government after the election.

History suggests that to get elected as a new government you mustn't frighten the horses (Labour knew this in 1997 and the Tories knew it in 2010) and once in you change the political agenda. So Labour currently need to negate the 'soft of immigration' and 'will take us back into the EU' narrative that the tories and their media chums will pump out over the next year. However once in power (assuming they do) I have no doubt they'll reset the situation on immigration and substantially reset our relationship with the EU.

Exactemundo. Anyway, even a Starmerite government would be vastly preferable to this shower.

[Nearly Sane]

Exactemundo. Anyway, even a Starmerite government would be vastly preferable to this shower.

And you seem another person happy to support parties lying.

[ProfessorDavey]

But leaving laws in place for independent agencies means they do have to apply them, or make a political choice not too.

Having the option to deport people to Rwanda doesn't mean you have to do it. The problem with an opposition suggesting that you will specifically repeal this piece of legislation or that piece of legislation is that you become defined be reactivity to the previous government. It is much better to propose a positive plan which would necessarily negate those earlier legislative instruments, without isolated repealing.

Right now we are seeing the issue that a government can get into if it defines itself by what it plans to repeal rather than what it plans to actually do - in this case the nonsense of suggesting wholesale repealing of EU laws for nothing other than idealogical reasons, rather than focus on what might replace them.

If you are happy with a govt politicising the police then you are part of the problem.

Where on earth did I say I was in favour of that.

And you also seem happy with political parties lying about what they are going to do.

In what way is it lying - a government in waiting could say it was specifically going to repeal law X and law Y, or it could say it is going to bring in law Z which over-riders law X or law Y. I'm struggling to see why they would be lying if they say the latter, bring in law Z and in doing so make laws X and Y redundant.

It is all about being pro-active in your agenda, not reactive, being about what you are for, not what you are against. A successful opposition can define itself by what it is against, but will likely only ever be that - an opposition. A successful government in waiting (i.e. one that actually becomes a government) needs to define itself by what it is for.

[Nearly Sane]

Having the option to deport people to Rwanda doesn't mean you have to do it. The problem with an opposition suggesting that you will specifically repeal this piece of legislation or that piece of legislation is that you become defined be reactivity to the previous government. It is much better to propose a positive plan which would necessarily negate those earlier legislative instruments, without isolated repealing.

Right now we are seeing the issue that a government can get into if it defines itself by what it plans to repeal rather than what it plans to actually do - in this case the nonsense of suggesting wholesale repealing of EU laws for nothing other than idealogical reasons, rather than focus on what might replace them.
Where on earth did I say I was in favour of that.
In what way is it lying - a government in waiting could say it was specifically going to repeal law X and law Y, or it could say it is going to bring in law Z which over-riders law X or law Y. I'm struggling to see why they would be lying if they say the latter, bring in law Z and in doing so make laws X and Y redundant.

It is all about being pro-active in your agenda, not reactive, being about what you are for, not what you are against. A successful opposition can define itself by what it is against, but will likely only ever be that - an opposition. A successful government in waiting (i.e. one that actually becomes a government) needs to define itself by what it is for.

When you use the words 'change the political agenda', in the context of your post you mean lie about what you are going to do.

[Stranger]

And you seem another person happy to support parties lying.

Saying one option is preferable to another, doesn't mean supporting everything they do. UK elections are pretty much all about the least bad option, or simply wanting to be rid of utterly terrible.

[ProfessorDavey]

When you use the words 'change the political agenda', in the context of your post you mean lie about what you are going to do.

Not at all.

Take 1997 - the agenda from the Tory government was all about Labour planning to increase tax - that's because the Tories were in control of the agenda and as an opposition to give any sniff that you'd raise tax was electoral suicide (as Labour had found out in 92). So they clearly said they weren't going to do it (and nor did they). They negated the argument. But once in power they changed the agenda to one, not of tax, but of investment in public services. And having done that they were playing to their strengths and able to claim that the Tories would cut services - and that worked very well in 2001 and 2005. The Tories got lucky, as the global financial crash allowed them to move back onto their natural territory of slashing public services under the smokescreen of reducing the deficit.

But the point is sometimes you need to recognise that being in government means you have the whip hand in driving the agenda, so best to negate attacks in areas where you are perceived as weak (where the government of the day will focus) and once in power shift the agenda onto areas where you are strong and the opposition weak.

Politics 101.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not going to repeal Tory immigration laws , not going to repeal Tory laws cracking down on protest, reneging on university tuition fees, no plans to do anything about Brexit, not standing up for striking public sector workers.

https://bylinetimes.com/2023/05/10/keir-starmer-wouldnt-repeal-morally-unacceptable-illegal-migration-bill/

Quote in the link:

"We have set our own comprehensive plan for how we would deal with the Channel crossings and we’ll be looking forward to bringing our own legislation through when we’re in government”, Starmer’s spokesman said.

“When you bring in new legislation, it often can involve sort of dealing with the predecessor legislation that there is. It doesn’t automatically mean it is necessary to repeal existing legislation to introduce your own legislation.”

Seems eminently sensible to me - why waste parliamentary time specifically repealing a piece of legislation rather than using that time to focus on what you actually want to do (i.e. what you are for rather than what you are against). And once your legislation is passed the previous legislation is over-ridden.

[Nearly Sane]

Not at all.

Take 1997 - the agenda from the Tory government was all about Labour planning to increase tax - that's because the Tories were in control of the agenda and as an opposition to give any sniff that you'd raise tax was electoral suicide (as Labour had found out in 92). So they clearly said they weren't going to do it (and nor did they). They negated the argument. But once in power they changed the agenda to one, not of tax, but of investment in public services. And having done that they were playing to their strengths and able to claim that the Tories would cut services - and that worked very well in 2001 and 2005. The Tories got lucky, as the global financial crash allowed them to move back onto their natural territory of slashing public services under the smokescreen of reducing the deficit.

But the point is sometimes you need to recognise that being in government means you have the whip hand in driving the agenda, so best to negate attacks in areas where you are perceived as weak (where the government of the day will focus) and once in power shift the agenda onto areas where you are strong and the opposition weak.

Politics 101.

Politics lying, which you support.

[Nearly Sane]

Saying one option is preferable to another, doesn't mean supporting everything they do. UK elections are pretty much all about the least bad option, or simply wanting to be rid of utterly terrible.

Saying that you support a party lying about what they are going to do means you support them lying.

Your statement is just straw 

[Nearly Sane]

Quote in the link:

"We have set our own comprehensive plan for how we would deal with the Channel crossings and we’ll be looking forward to bringing our own legislation through when we’re in government”, Starmer’s spokesman said.

“When you bring in new legislation, it often can involve sort of dealing with the predecessor legislation that there is. It doesn’t automatically mean it is necessary to repeal existing legislation to introduce your own legislation.”

Seems eminently sensible to me - why waste parliamentary time specifically repealing a piece of legislation rather than using that time to focus on what you actually want to do (i.e. what you are for rather than what you are against). And once your legislation is passed the previous legislation is over-ridden.

So you support the legislation on protest? And the reneging on university fees,

[Stranger]

Saying that you support a party lying about what they are going to do means you support them lying.

The post you were responding to didn't even say anything about supporting the party. It said: "...even a Starmerite government would be vastly preferable to this shower."

Even if it had, 'supporting' a party can mean simply that you're going to vote for them, not that you think they have done no wrong. Good luck finding any party whose every policy you can support an has always keep every promise it made.

Back here in the real world, I'll settle for pretty much anything better than the current government of morally bankrupt sadistic halfwits.

[ProfessorDavey]

So you support the legislation on protest?

It needs amending, but that doesn't necessarily mean full repeal.

I think plenty of people support the ability for the police to prevent protests that are highly disruptive to ordinary people going about their lives - for example closing motorways by gluing yourself to the road etc. That seems to me to go beyond what it reasonable under the auspices of peaceful protest.

And we need to get beyond the issue of whether you support or do not support the cause. So if you are supportive of the environmental movement you might perhaps be in favour of these protests, but you have to ask yourself whether you'd be in favour of a protest using similar means that closed down the tube or rail network conducted by people who want to expel all asylum seekers. You cannot cherry pick whether you support the means of protest on the basis of whether you support the cause.

But that does not mean that major amendments aren't required, and/or clear guidance to police. So police action needs to be on the basis of very clear intelligence of the threat of disruption of this nature and certainly not on the basis of 'hey look you've got a strap to hold those placards together'.

So I think a Labour approach that is based on the notion that the approaches used by some protesters are not acceptable (where they involve very major disruption to others and/or endanger health or life), but that the right to protest using mechanisms that do not cross that threshold must be protected seems eminently sensible to me.

And the best way forward for that may be amendment rather than repeal - or new legislation that over-rides the previous laws without the need for separate repeal.

[ProfessorDavey]

And the reneging on university fees,

I think as a government you are only reneging on something if you are elected on the basis of a particular policy and then do not implement it.

Unless I'm mistaken there isn't a Labour Government yet, so there is no Labour Government to have reneged on the manifesto it put to the electorate at a general election.

Once we get to a general election that Labour party will need to stand on a manifesto (that manifesto has yet to be published) and it will be elected or otherwise on the basis of whether the public approve of that manifesto. If it is elected on a clear pledge to do something but then reverses its view, then you'd have a point - but it hasn't yet.

By the way, from where we are now abolishing tuition fees in their entirety seems a non-starter to me. We might like to be back in 1998 or 2010 and have made a different decision back then ... but we aren't - we cannot rewrite history, but we can consider the best way forward from where we are now.

[Nearly Sane]

I think as a government you are only reneging on something if you are elected on the basis of a particular policy and then do not implement it.

Unless I'm mistaken there isn't a Labour Government yet, so there is no Labour Government to have reneged on the manifesto it put to the electorate at a general election.

Once we get to a general election that Labour party will need to stand on a manifesto (that manifesto has yet to be published) and it will be elected or otherwise on the basis of whether the public approve of that manifesto. If it is elected on a clear pledge to do something but then reverses its view, then you'd have a point - but it hasn't yet.

By the way, from where we are now abolishing tuition fees in their entirety seems a non-starter to me. We might like to be back in 1998 or 2010 and have made a different decision back then ... but we aren't - we cannot rewrite history, but we can consider the best way forward from where we are now.

Promise, rescind - lie

[Nearly Sane]

It needs amending, but that doesn't necessarily mean full repeal.

I think plenty of people support the ability for the police to prevent protests that are highly disruptive to ordinary people going about their lives - for example closing motorways by gluing yourself to the road etc. That seems to me to go beyond what it reasonable under the auspices of peaceful protest.

And we need to get beyond the issue of whether you support or do not support the cause. So if you are supportive of the environmental movement you might perhaps be in favour of these protests, but you have to ask yourself whether you'd be in favour of a protest using similar means that closed down the tube or rail network conducted by people who want to expel all asylum seekers. You cannot cherry pick whether you support the means of protest on the basis of whether you support the cause.

But that does not mean that major amendments aren't required, and/or clear guidance to police. So police action needs to be on the basis of very clear intelligence of the threat of disruption of this nature and certainly not on the basis of 'hey look you've got a strap to hold those placards together'.

So I think a Labour approach that is based on the notion that the approaches used by some protesters are not acceptable (where they involve very major disruption to others and/or endanger health or life), but that the right to protest using mechanisms that do not cross that threshold must be protected seems eminently sensible to me.

And the best way forward for that may be amendment rather than repeal - or new legislation that over-rides the previous laws without the need for separate repeal.

Then all it needs was for Lammy to say none of these laws will apply but he didn't. But not only lying, you support the cowardly lying.

[ProfessorDavey]

Promise, rescind - lie

A lie is deliberately telling a mistruth.

If you change your mind on something that isn't necessarily a lie, unless you knew that you never planned to do it. And if the situation changes then it seems eminently sensible that politicians (of whatever colour) are able to respond to those changes and that may mean doing things that they'd previous thought they wouldn't and not doing things they previously thought they would.

I think Starmer is getting grief over things he said in the Labour leadership election in Feb 2020 - hmm not as if anything significant has happened in the intervening period that would suggest reappraisal might be in order.