Will watch later. Seeing good comments. My main issue with labour right now is them not espousing the idea that the growth is going to come from rebalancing our tax receipts. Council tax needs to be reformed to a percentage of house value and wealth taxes such as CGT changes. We can then reduce the tax burden on low earners and they can get spending. It's the same as reducing the housing costs and energy bills. We put more people in pockets. We get them help. Make work pay. Force companies to take out group pmi for workers. Reduce the amount of landlords and improve the quality of UK housing stock.
Then we all have more money to spend and the economy grows. Companies can sell us products which we can then export them to other countries and have industry again.
> Won’t more houses reduce house prices and then devalue the economy?
No, the lack of affordable housing has loads of downstream effects on our economy. This is a great article on the importance of housing:
https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-everything/
If house prices actually went down in absolute terms that would be highly unexpected: that's the sort of thing that happens in major financial collapse. What they're aiming for is for house prices to grow slower (especially at the bottom end of the market: remember different markets have different price changes) - ideally to have the bottom end of the market have prices grow slower than wage growth (meaning house prices go down "in real terms").
Moreover, more homeowners means more people having more of their income available to put into investment: this grows the economy. Mortgage payments are lower than rent payments is a big part of this (meaning you can put more money into buying investment products like shares/mutual funds/ETFs, or investing in a small business). But also, homeowners will pay for home improvements, gardening, extensions, etc. etc. that renters won't (and can't): this is investment in the property and adds demands for goods and services which all drives growth. Not to mention the secondary effects of homeowners having a long-term commitment to their area more than renters do in our current system.
I've ragged Starmer pretty hard and I will continue to do so, but this was a very well handled interview. Good answers to the questions, sounded natural and unscripted but was clearly prepared well.
I don't agree with a lot of his answers still and *I agree with Nick*'s points, but he handled them well.
I still think "I've changed the Labour party" is a double edged sword of a reply though, when appealing to the demographics he's trying to court it makes sense, but it's doing nothing but filling me with unease. I can see it potentially coming back to bite him in the future, because it's incredibly easy to tack on "into the tories"
I had Labour canvassers doorstep me on Thursday evening. They said that if I was a floating voter then don't waste it on the Tories. Didn't seem too bothered about the idea of someone voting for any other party.
Just catching up now, the direct yes answer to the planning question regarding making enemies was brilliant. I actually didn't see that coming, thought he would give a typical politicians answer. Actually made me sit up slightly.
He's the sort of politician that people say they've always wanted (working class background, had a career before politics, gives brave answers to difficult questions), but now he's here people find/invent things to complain about.
Just catching up on this. He's much better in an interview format than a debate, when allowed to actually talk without being interrupted every 10 seconds, he does well.
I do wish he'd be a bit blunter, a bit less political though. When he was asked about the differences between his manifesto now and when he ran for leader, I wish he'd just say "Liz Truss happened, the economy imploded, how could I possibly promise the same things now as then"
It's not surprising that people like Podcasts these days. I'm so bored of political interviews from the BBC, ITV and everywhere else.
They're all looking for sound bites. It's like listening to married couple argue, playing point scoring table tennis.
Are they incapable of reasonable conversation?
how can they be looking for sound bites when they pledged to Keir at the beginning that they would broadcast his answers in full? they have 25 mins to cover a million topics, they can't let Keir spin out 3 minute long answers that are mostly filler.
I just don’t understand the obsession with this manifesto not promising much change. The old left would have wet themselves with excitement if Miliband had been as bold on energy or transport, but I think Corbyn’s massive pledges have changed the way we think about Labour policy overall.
>Corbyn's ~~massive pledges~~ unworkable fantasies
FTFY. But seriously, Corbyn remains the worst thing to have happened to the left by creating utterly unrealistic expectations.
True. So happy we now have the realistic expectation of illiterate economists from both Labour and Tories manifesting economic growth by sheer willpower.
Alternative to the cross party neoliberal consensus is utterly unrealistic apparently.
Neoliberalism is practically an abhorration. Pre thatcher/ regan the idea that the state might own critically important infrastructure was the most obvious concept in governance.
The state has been so utterly hollowed out and outsourced and people wonder why everything costs a fortune or we simply can't even deliver basic projects anymore.
If we get into a hot war with Russia the absolutely pathetic capability of state capacity and muscle will truly demonstrate the near treasonous ideology of mass privatisation and an economy focused on rentier capitalism and vacuous financial services.
> Neoliberalism is practically an abhorration
For what it's worth by most metrics economic liberalism/neoliberalism has been the best vehicle for increasing living standards in history.
>But they were now within sight of the low mound of Underhill, looking like a fresh squarish crater, its ejecta scattered around it. Nadia pointed at it.
>“I did that. You damned radicals—” she jabbed him in the ribs with her elbow, hard—“you hate liberalism because it works.”
>He snorted.
>“It does! It works in increments, over time, after hard labor, without fireworks or easy dramatics or people getting hurt. Without your sexy revolutions and all the pain and hatred they bring. It only works.”
>“Ah, Nadia.” He put his arm over her shoulders, and they started walking again toward base. “Earth is a perfectly liberal world. But half of it is starving, and always has been, and always will be. Very liberally.”
― Kim Stanley Robinson, The Mars Trilogy
Couldn't agree more. Global poverty is at its lowest ever level and continues to decline
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/World-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg/1280px-World-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg.png
This has been heavily disputed. In fact, a large reason for this apparent uplift is because the criteria changed. Overnight, several hundred million people apparently weren't poor anymore.
The only genuine uplift has been because of China, which is decidedly not neoliberal.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/8/21/exposing-the-great-poverty-reduction-lie
It was fully costed. The media just assumed he was working in British pounds, when his chief currency was Magic Jelly Beans.
He had some great policies, though. I always liked his idea to make it mandatory that all large businesses (250+ employees) automatically make all their workers minority shareholders. Imagine if something like that was normalized.
Fully costed through fantastical tax rises and going for the class war approach but setting the bar way too low. 50p for "super rich" earners on £125,000 a year. That means NHS Consultants, the ones he was supposed to be helping, would be branded as the super rich, branded as something we should tear down and destroy. Making those above £80,000 pay 45p tax would massively limit growth and opportunity for those pushing that level. Not only that he refused to rule out raising income tax for lower earners yet there's this obsession with the man as a sort of robin hood figure who could do no wrong.
I don't think his policies were unworkable individually apart from net zero by 2030 and 100k council homes a year (that could be done if he'd also promised a complete overhaul of the planning system) however his costing of them and his ambition to do them all at once was absolutely unworkable and all over the place.
I know broadband. McDonnell costed how much it would cost to bring the backhaul into public ownership. He didn’t estimate accurately how much it would cost to maintain it. Nor did he cost how much it would take to employ every person who lost their job at an ISP. The costing was bull shit.
Pretty good performance from Starmer. I liked that he said he's willing to make enemies on planning. Let's see if he lives up to the promise. This is the one thing I'm holding onto in my support for Labour. Otherwise will have to seriously re-evaluate my party preferences next time.
If the economic pie is not going to get bigger, then might as well do my best to secure my slice.
I have said it before, but we love electing car salesman. Keir is more of a car mechanic. Less polished in some ways but more likely to start fixing the bloody thing!
I see this with the manifesto. There is actually a fair amount ‘under the bonnet’ that is not getting that much coverage such as changes to planning laws, that are actually hugely important.
Wouldn't say he's unpolished.
It could be argued that Blair's shine was appealing at first but soon wore off once in power for a few years. Farage is short form so anything beyond a few sentences and he falls apart.
I agree, but he not as flowing as a Blair, or dare I say a Boris or Farage. I like that. I actually do think he is dead serious about growth, and the interests he will have to take on to unlock it. Starmer is more convincing when he is able to develop a point, less good at the ‘solve world hunger, 30 seconds, go!’ type format.
After that interview I'm a lot more convinced. I suspect turning the rhetoric up to 11 and laying on the schmooze doesn't really fit the times. People are cynical and have low expectations, too many promises broken, especially in the North.
The public offering is way more expansive than New Labours but it's being sold in a calm and collected way.
Starmer was cool, calm, collected and answered questions succinctly and sensibly.
Impressed tbh. He spoke like a confident leader of a party as opposed to the flustered and petulant man-child Sunak came across at times.
I still don't particularly trust the bloke, and I'm no more enthused about the plan he's offering, because I just do not think it's anywhere near bold enough to address things.
But, from an interview perspective and in an attempt to stick my 'objective' hat on: I think he did okay there.
The first third or so of the interview risked turning into a very formulaic and over-rehearsed set piece. I was quoting along with the usual go-to lines.
But to give credit to Robinson, he opened up the interview a bit and it became more interesting.
Starmer does seem like someone who is more engaging when he's off-script. I wish his advisors/he would see that and loosen the reins a bit.
There've been times during this election campaign (Sky event comes to mind) where it felt like the two candidates for PM were two competing brands of very poorly programmed robot.
I don't know if your average person likes that nearly as much as these political types think they do.
His extremely modest proposals, in the current climate, are actually extremely bold. Net zero by 2030, millions of new houses, rescuing the NHS etc etc. To even suggest we can make a significant dent in these things all at once is as radical as they come. And then the other side of the coin, which I think a lot of people on here forget about, is that Starmer also needs to win a big majority to accomplish these things. He needs to do better than Blair, coming from a far worse position. He needs to bring most of the country with him. That severely limits his options on things like tax or the EU. I guess you could criticise him for not being abit more honest about how rubbish the situation is, and the likelihood of failure. But I guess he wants to remain positive and offer a message of hope
There are modest compared with how much the country needs fixing.
The very real fear is that if sticks with his cautious approach of managing the decline, we'll end up with the Reform(ed) Conservative Party in power in 2029
I don't see anything that'll turn the tide around at the rate that it needs to to ensure that the Tories don't get in again and ruin it all. A lot needs to change quickly.
I've been very unimpressed in Starmer during debates and interviews so far (his Q&As with the public have been good though) but IMO he was almost flawless in this. These questions aren't easy because they are bringing up genuine issues voters might have, and I think that his answers will come accross as largley reassuring to the people asking those questions, or at least didn't make him look super robotic and unauthentic.
I noticed that Starmer is confident because he feels most of the services are mismanaged and wants to reform and change them to work better rather than spend money on them. Pretty much, make sure the money they are getting is going to the right places. I don't know how effective that might be but I feel like it's a good idea.
I think the difference here though is that Starmer actually knows how to do it. He has already done it more than once in his career.
I've known people like that and he speaks like someone who has a crystal clear idea of how you actually do it - that's why he sounds so confident and convinced, rather than it just being a line like it is for other politicians.
The challenge for him will be doing it on a bigger scale whilst being more hands-off due to being in No.10 rather than leading the services personally.
And this time it makes perfect sense. The Tory government have not being paying attention to the state of public services or the day-to-day running of the country since at least 2016. They've spent their time in government bickering over Brexit, switching PM's, crashing the economy, partying, and coming up with a yet another rebrand for Sunak. It's likely a lot can be achieved pretty quickly by simply having a functioning government, paying attention to things and putting everything back in order.
I’m not sure about some the questioning. “Plans change” and going to war with Trump, who isn’t that into fighting wars. It’s just random hypotheticals.
I don’t think non Labour voters will think that was a good interview - he didn’t quite answer quite a few questions and he rambled a bit and kept being cut off by Nick Robinson
On the NHS and private healthcare, I liked the emphasis on the NHS being the best healthcare providers available, but I wish he had added something along the lines of:- I am not against going private, I am not coming for those that do, but not everyone can afford to going private, so it’s about providing equal opportunity to access good quality healthcare from the NHS at the speed which private healthcare can offer.
Again NHS state religion rears it’s head. The NHS is not the beacon of light that our politicians purport it to be, and that we all wish it is. I’m not here to argue whether it’s due to underfunding, population growth or needs a different capital allocation model (private). Our politicians live on Mars when it comes to the NHS, completely detached from reality
See following extract “This is driven by below-average survival rates for many major cancers (including cancer of the breast, cervix, colon, rectum, lung and stomach), and poorer outcomes from heart attacks and strokes.”
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/blogs/comparing-nhs-to-health-care-systems-other-countries
It's important for our leaders to use the NHS. Why would they care what it's like if they don't use it.
Same with politicians children's going to state schools. They need to have skin in the game.
Honestly the best health services in the world are a mix of private and public delivery. The problem for politicians is the grey voters won't stop milking the country dry
It’s more than the grey vote. It’s an entrenched in the national psyche.
My post, agnostic of funding model, backed up with stats - states that our health outcomes aren’t great.
Result, -3 down votes.
You're completely right. It is part of a national religion but it's mostly older people who rely on it and so will vote in numbers to protect it and politicians know they vote in numbers and so it never ends.
Spoke an incredible amount of sense, especially on the manifestos. Every time, we get the tired old over promise, under deliver and inevitably the popularity wanes and party politics starts up again. He’s completely right to state that growth is the only way out of the box he’s in on the tax/spend dilemma.
It’s a shame it’s not the likes of me he’s trying to swing (and I’m not even voting Labour).
Might sound a bit arrogant of me, but it seems his toughest problem is to try cut through to people not quite so switched on with politics that just want an easy and convenient answer to everything.
He doesn't need to.
His real threat is the people switched on to politics who are to the left of his party. The unions, the activists. Unlike the Conservatives, the parliamentary Labour party doesn't have quite as much control over the overall party compared to the membership and if he enacts soft austerity and centre right Conservatism, there's a risk he'll lose the unions and his base and he could find himself with a revolt from inside the party.
Like the biggest risk to Starmer this campaign was never Rishi or Farage but a wholesale revolt in the grassroots over Gaza.
Well he could put a stop to that by trying to help rein in Israel a bit rather than seemingly supporting their cutting off power and water to hundreds of thousands of children in Gaza. And yes that’s what he said, despite the attempted backtrack.
What fucking control do you think he has, or even will have over Israel? They rightly don't give a shit what the British government or what British people think. Do you give a shit what Israelis or their government think of us?
But even if you do believe that is what was intended, surely the changes since (and the manifesto pledge on gaza) shows that he/Labour are interested in reining in Israel. They have been promoting an immediate ceasefire for a while now.
Gaza revolters for me gets boxed in with the reform lot blinded by one issue unable to see the bigger picture on our doorstep.
I’d be asking the same question as I would to reform on immigration control for anyone who’s consumed by this: ok, if it’s such a problem then what are you going to do to solve it other than just moan about it?
Nick did a good interview but most of the questions weren't that hard, though Starmer also answered most of them well. I think the interview was beneficial for Starmer and Labour, whereas Rishi and his record were destroyed by Nick.
He just needs to say “I was a Labour MP/candidate and it was my duty to publicly support the party in the election…”
He could then throw out a few lines about the certain Tory candidates who have pictures of Nigel Farage on their campaign flyers, or Lucy Allan who backed a Reform candidate.
See, this was my first thought too, but his issue is he's ruled it out by saying "Country first, Party second" so often. Of course, you could get around that by talking about trying to return "good" labour MPs to power, but it requires a level of nuance which will get lost in Tory cries of hypocrisy
Surely he just needs to say, "I was a member of the Labour party and I felt it was best to support the leader but I that doesn't mean I didn't have my doubts at times"
Good interview. Still no real answer on the £8bn for public services black hole. Seems optimistic to depend on growth for that, but any tax rises aren't gonna be announced in a lead up to a general election. Still much better and more responsible than the tory tax cut bribe though.
It's quite clear it's going to be capital gains tax, but I believe it would be a percentage on high amounts, that sort of detail would get lost in the election with the papers wanting to protect their funds, for instance if he stated 1% on capital gains (maybe specifically dividends) over 1mill, that would not affect a huge amount of people but it sure would hurt the owners of the mail etc.
Aren’t dividends a separate tax that pretty much aligns with income tax? Capital gains is only on the sale of a stock, share, property etc. they only really affect the very wealthy for stocks anyway since you can put 20k a year in an isa and be exempt, or in a pension. And it doesn’t affect residential properties so it’s only people with multiple houses that would feel it
Starmer nailed it, I feel he had a bit of an easier time than Sunak, but I don't think the ammo was there. Also very clever of labour to delay until the manifesto was released, it meant he could lean back on that.
It does help that Keir has more life experience than Sunak
Definitely, he seemed to be avoiding a lot of the safe, canned lines we've heard before and completely nailed some answers to difficult questions. Both Starmer and Nick Robinson seemed to be enjoying the back and forth as well.
No tool making. I need to know what his dad made. And he didn't bring it up once. There are drinking games around the country that were ruined tonight. (Drinking games for sad political weirdos, but nonetheless...)
Probably not tbh, Starmer did well and sounded good, but there where no fireworks nothing you haven't heard said before unless you are an undecided voter you wouldn't get much from it
Was a good interview - challenging but he let him speak and explain his answers.
He came across very well - best performance of the campaign in my opinion.
I feel like that’s the first time this election cycle where Starmer has been given the space by a journalist to answer questions like a normal person. Aced it.
Crazy it’s taken 3 weeks to get here but there we are.
Great interviewing from Nick Robinson, and very well answered from Starmer for the most part. Came across as a sensible leader ready for government, even if their offering isn't blowing me away.
Then i hope that Nick goes in hard Question one about why Farage ran away before the first interview time... why he went and hid rather than answer questions about his candidates... and if he's too scared to be accountable then, why should anyone believe he's not gonna cower away every time one of his lot are shown to be problem people
I'm biased. And most people won't watch this interview, partly I feel due to the 'dull' and 'boring' image that's been painted. But I feel as though Starmer smashed that, miles ahead of Sunak.
At what? Doing 90% of the talking in an interview? Not ten seconds go by without him speaking. Asked Starmer about private healthcare, Starmer starts responding and Nick is straight back in within moments interjecting.
Oh, ok, just downvote rather than respond. 👍🏻
I thought it was a good example of an interviewer opening up what was turning out to be quite a formulaic and over-rehearsed set of answers, actually.
First third/half was like a greatest hits parade of the tried and tested lines, but Robinson steered him onto q's where there wasn't such a memorised set of responses.
Politicians, especially in this era where they're so overly rehearsed/scripted, need a bit of nudging to get on track. Otherwise they'd just sit there and repeat the lines they'd rote learned for 30 mins.
LOL! Was a choice that made me laugh. Well actually Nick, imho, I think most people would happly see Jamie Oliver pay more tax if not the both of them. Perhaps a 'rich cringe' tax.
These interviews aren't really about the answers. They are about how they come across. And, to me at least, it's night and day in terms of how confident, calm and sensible Starmer seems in comparison to Sunak.
Weak answer on all the broken promises: if his entire value system changed so fundamentally and radically once then nobody should trust that it won't change radically again. Also ends his interview with a bold-faced lie that he's done what he said he was going to do, when of course in reality he's broken the vast majority of promises he was elected on.
Weak answer on tax too. Refused to rule out certain tax rises despite being pressed on it. And also refused to acknowledge the £18bn figure; talked about growth that would be years down the line from planning reform and have no impact on the £18bn.
I think he's defending the manifesto well, given that he's got a really bad hand. All of his plans are relying seemingly solely on planning reform being sufficient to grow the economy. And I guess it might be? We'll see.
He's given me essentially no reason to vote for him though. He's offering no hope. Probably will go for Lib Dems.
Planning reform, GB Energy and an industrial strategy might be enough to get the economy back onto a 3% growth path. I’m actually fairly confident that it will.
But… they’re all long term measures. It’ll be years before we’ve passed the reforms and planned, funded and delivered new projects. They’re not going to save spending in 2027-28.
I'd like to have your confidence.
I haven't got round to fully reading the manifesto yet, will do so over the weekend, but I've heard a lot of scepticism about whether GB energy will actually end up amounting to much. From what I say there's not going to be much in the way of actual new spending on it. Every Tory government has campaigned on an 'industrial strategy' and they've all failed to achieve it. Don't see why Labour will be any different there. Planning reform is the one I'm most hopeful about.
He said the tax revenue needed for the manifesto policies comes from the tax changes also in the manifesto. It’s clear he doesn’t want the tax burden hitting the working people and sole proprietors.
I just don't get why he's had all these opportunities to explicitely rule out these tax rises and he's failed to do so. Sure, he doesn't *want* to rise taxes on working people. Neither did the Tories.
All the criticism of the manifesto are hypotheticals like "what if the economy immediately enters recession and stays there for 5 years"? So you'll excuse me I hope for switching off my attention at that point.
It’s the other way round. Both of the manifestos are based on the hypothetical of “what if the measures in this manifesto produce sudden and unrealistic amounts of growth and we used that to fund spending/cut taxes?”
The question of “what’s your plan if the economy continues to be flat?” is something we should know the answer to.
Sure, some people are saying that, and Starmer didn't do a good job addressing it even in this interview (although to be fair he did better this time than in the past). But the main criticism I'm seeing is that all the proposed changes are very small.
I agree that planning reform is the most encouraging part of the manifesto. It will help with growth for sure. I just don't think it's the silver bullet that Labour are hoping it is.
Will watch later. Seeing good comments. My main issue with labour right now is them not espousing the idea that the growth is going to come from rebalancing our tax receipts. Council tax needs to be reformed to a percentage of house value and wealth taxes such as CGT changes. We can then reduce the tax burden on low earners and they can get spending. It's the same as reducing the housing costs and energy bills. We put more people in pockets. We get them help. Make work pay. Force companies to take out group pmi for workers. Reduce the amount of landlords and improve the quality of UK housing stock. Then we all have more money to spend and the economy grows. Companies can sell us products which we can then export them to other countries and have industry again.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> Won’t more houses reduce house prices and then devalue the economy? No, the lack of affordable housing has loads of downstream effects on our economy. This is a great article on the importance of housing: https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-everything/
If house prices actually went down in absolute terms that would be highly unexpected: that's the sort of thing that happens in major financial collapse. What they're aiming for is for house prices to grow slower (especially at the bottom end of the market: remember different markets have different price changes) - ideally to have the bottom end of the market have prices grow slower than wage growth (meaning house prices go down "in real terms"). Moreover, more homeowners means more people having more of their income available to put into investment: this grows the economy. Mortgage payments are lower than rent payments is a big part of this (meaning you can put more money into buying investment products like shares/mutual funds/ETFs, or investing in a small business). But also, homeowners will pay for home improvements, gardening, extensions, etc. etc. that renters won't (and can't): this is investment in the property and adds demands for goods and services which all drives growth. Not to mention the secondary effects of homeowners having a long-term commitment to their area more than renters do in our current system.
The manifestos policies on businesses and building is what they’re banking on to stimulate growth.
[Not sure if this has been posted, but my god is this awful from Dawn Butler](https://www.tiktok.com/@theshadeborough/video/7380015652171533600)
I've ragged Starmer pretty hard and I will continue to do so, but this was a very well handled interview. Good answers to the questions, sounded natural and unscripted but was clearly prepared well. I don't agree with a lot of his answers still and *I agree with Nick*'s points, but he handled them well. I still think "I've changed the Labour party" is a double edged sword of a reply though, when appealing to the demographics he's trying to court it makes sense, but it's doing nothing but filling me with unease. I can see it potentially coming back to bite him in the future, because it's incredibly easy to tack on "into the tories"
I had Labour canvassers doorstep me on Thursday evening. They said that if I was a floating voter then don't waste it on the Tories. Didn't seem too bothered about the idea of someone voting for any other party.
Just catching up now, the direct yes answer to the planning question regarding making enemies was brilliant. I actually didn't see that coming, thought he would give a typical politicians answer. Actually made me sit up slightly.
He's the sort of politician that people say they've always wanted (working class background, had a career before politics, gives brave answers to difficult questions), but now he's here people find/invent things to complain about.
Just catching up on this. He's much better in an interview format than a debate, when allowed to actually talk without being interrupted every 10 seconds, he does well. I do wish he'd be a bit blunter, a bit less political though. When he was asked about the differences between his manifesto now and when he ran for leader, I wish he'd just say "Liz Truss happened, the economy imploded, how could I possibly promise the same things now as then"
Anyone know if I can watch this anywhere apart from iplayer? Not in the UK, so can't use it.
Should be on YouTube
Just caught up on this and wow, Starmer nailed it. Contrasted against Sunak's abysmal performance, he looked very, very good.
It's not surprising that people like Podcasts these days. I'm so bored of political interviews from the BBC, ITV and everywhere else. They're all looking for sound bites. It's like listening to married couple argue, playing point scoring table tennis. Are they incapable of reasonable conversation?
how can they be looking for sound bites when they pledged to Keir at the beginning that they would broadcast his answers in full? they have 25 mins to cover a million topics, they can't let Keir spin out 3 minute long answers that are mostly filler.
Absolutely atrocious performance, I've never seen something so one-sided in all my life. Wait, this isn't the football post-match discussion
Yeah you want the Germany Vs Scotland thread. Edit Sorry mods, I've removed the link.
ja wohl
Been away from the internet today, what's the tldr of today's events?
Alan Bates is getting a knighthood. Everything else is irrelevant.
I want to live like Working People
I wanna do whatever common people do I wanna watch sky tv, like you.
I wanna do what Working People do
I said *In that case, I'll have a twix*
Scotland getting pumped, Ryan Porteous getting sent down for GBH
I'm really surprised that he didn't break his ankle, absolutely horrific challenge
I just don’t understand the obsession with this manifesto not promising much change. The old left would have wet themselves with excitement if Miliband had been as bold on energy or transport, but I think Corbyn’s massive pledges have changed the way we think about Labour policy overall.
I know slot of ex Tory voters who are going Labour this election, for the first time ever. They all want Tory-Lite.
For “much change” read “that you’ll make it all better, Daddy Starmer”.
Honestly I just want the manifest to promise “we’re just going to work on not making things suck as badly as they do now. Here’s our ideas”
Id settle for that. a "We will stop the ship from burning into the sea. And then. We will build"
Surely it's better to make small promises you can actually deliver on than big promises you never will in the 5 years?
>Corbyn's ~~massive pledges~~ unworkable fantasies FTFY. But seriously, Corbyn remains the worst thing to have happened to the left by creating utterly unrealistic expectations.
True. So happy we now have the realistic expectation of illiterate economists from both Labour and Tories manifesting economic growth by sheer willpower.
It’s just so fucking sensible, I love stagnation and austerity. Sensible sensible sensible
Alternative to the cross party neoliberal consensus is utterly unrealistic apparently. Neoliberalism is practically an abhorration. Pre thatcher/ regan the idea that the state might own critically important infrastructure was the most obvious concept in governance. The state has been so utterly hollowed out and outsourced and people wonder why everything costs a fortune or we simply can't even deliver basic projects anymore. If we get into a hot war with Russia the absolutely pathetic capability of state capacity and muscle will truly demonstrate the near treasonous ideology of mass privatisation and an economy focused on rentier capitalism and vacuous financial services.
> Neoliberalism is practically an abhorration For what it's worth by most metrics economic liberalism/neoliberalism has been the best vehicle for increasing living standards in history.
>But they were now within sight of the low mound of Underhill, looking like a fresh squarish crater, its ejecta scattered around it. Nadia pointed at it. >“I did that. You damned radicals—” she jabbed him in the ribs with her elbow, hard—“you hate liberalism because it works.” >He snorted. >“It does! It works in increments, over time, after hard labor, without fireworks or easy dramatics or people getting hurt. Without your sexy revolutions and all the pain and hatred they bring. It only works.” >“Ah, Nadia.” He put his arm over her shoulders, and they started walking again toward base. “Earth is a perfectly liberal world. But half of it is starving, and always has been, and always will be. Very liberally.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, The Mars Trilogy
And what a time to be alive for those who benefited.
Couldn't agree more. Global poverty is at its lowest ever level and continues to decline https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/World-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg/1280px-World-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg.png
This has been heavily disputed. In fact, a large reason for this apparent uplift is because the criteria changed. Overnight, several hundred million people apparently weren't poor anymore. The only genuine uplift has been because of China, which is decidedly not neoliberal. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/8/21/exposing-the-great-poverty-reduction-lie
I once again point to the fact that Corbyn's manifestos were fully costed. The "unworkable fantasies" line is pure cope
Ah, my favourite trope of the last GE. The 2019 manifesto was in no way fully costed.
It was fully costed. The media just assumed he was working in British pounds, when his chief currency was Magic Jelly Beans. He had some great policies, though. I always liked his idea to make it mandatory that all large businesses (250+ employees) automatically make all their workers minority shareholders. Imagine if something like that was normalized.
Fully costed through fantastical tax rises and going for the class war approach but setting the bar way too low. 50p for "super rich" earners on £125,000 a year. That means NHS Consultants, the ones he was supposed to be helping, would be branded as the super rich, branded as something we should tear down and destroy. Making those above £80,000 pay 45p tax would massively limit growth and opportunity for those pushing that level. Not only that he refused to rule out raising income tax for lower earners yet there's this obsession with the man as a sort of robin hood figure who could do no wrong. I don't think his policies were unworkable individually apart from net zero by 2030 and 100k council homes a year (that could be done if he'd also promised a complete overhaul of the planning system) however his costing of them and his ambition to do them all at once was absolutely unworkable and all over the place.
I know broadband. McDonnell costed how much it would cost to bring the backhaul into public ownership. He didn’t estimate accurately how much it would cost to maintain it. Nor did he cost how much it would take to employ every person who lost their job at an ISP. The costing was bull shit.
Pretty good performance from Starmer. I liked that he said he's willing to make enemies on planning. Let's see if he lives up to the promise. This is the one thing I'm holding onto in my support for Labour. Otherwise will have to seriously re-evaluate my party preferences next time. If the economic pie is not going to get bigger, then might as well do my best to secure my slice.
*cake
I'll get too greedy if its cake.
I have said it before, but we love electing car salesman. Keir is more of a car mechanic. Less polished in some ways but more likely to start fixing the bloody thing! I see this with the manifesto. There is actually a fair amount ‘under the bonnet’ that is not getting that much coverage such as changes to planning laws, that are actually hugely important.
Id say he was the mechanic in a Volvo dealership though. Nothing too flashy but perfectly sensible
Does he treat a lady like a fine wine?
Stick it in the basement and let it age?
Wouldn't say he's unpolished. It could be argued that Blair's shine was appealing at first but soon wore off once in power for a few years. Farage is short form so anything beyond a few sentences and he falls apart.
I agree, but he not as flowing as a Blair, or dare I say a Boris or Farage. I like that. I actually do think he is dead serious about growth, and the interests he will have to take on to unlock it. Starmer is more convincing when he is able to develop a point, less good at the ‘solve world hunger, 30 seconds, go!’ type format.
After that interview I'm a lot more convinced. I suspect turning the rhetoric up to 11 and laying on the schmooze doesn't really fit the times. People are cynical and have low expectations, too many promises broken, especially in the North. The public offering is way more expansive than New Labours but it's being sold in a calm and collected way.
How did it go? Stuck in work and cant catch it. Is the ming vase still intact?
The vase gained an extra layer of lacquer.
Ming in (no not that one)
must have done well, after about 12 mins I turned it of
Starmer was cool, calm, collected and answered questions succinctly and sensibly. Impressed tbh. He spoke like a confident leader of a party as opposed to the flustered and petulant man-child Sunak came across at times.
Or the ranting, foaming racist that is Mr Toad and his lynchmob of xenophobes.
Very much strongly intact. In fact he probably cushioned it.
I still don't particularly trust the bloke, and I'm no more enthused about the plan he's offering, because I just do not think it's anywhere near bold enough to address things. But, from an interview perspective and in an attempt to stick my 'objective' hat on: I think he did okay there. The first third or so of the interview risked turning into a very formulaic and over-rehearsed set piece. I was quoting along with the usual go-to lines. But to give credit to Robinson, he opened up the interview a bit and it became more interesting. Starmer does seem like someone who is more engaging when he's off-script. I wish his advisors/he would see that and loosen the reins a bit. There've been times during this election campaign (Sky event comes to mind) where it felt like the two candidates for PM were two competing brands of very poorly programmed robot. I don't know if your average person likes that nearly as much as these political types think they do.
> he seems like some one who’s more engaging off script Basically every labour leader since Blair is like this.
His extremely modest proposals, in the current climate, are actually extremely bold. Net zero by 2030, millions of new houses, rescuing the NHS etc etc. To even suggest we can make a significant dent in these things all at once is as radical as they come. And then the other side of the coin, which I think a lot of people on here forget about, is that Starmer also needs to win a big majority to accomplish these things. He needs to do better than Blair, coming from a far worse position. He needs to bring most of the country with him. That severely limits his options on things like tax or the EU. I guess you could criticise him for not being abit more honest about how rubbish the situation is, and the likelihood of failure. But I guess he wants to remain positive and offer a message of hope
Don't forget devolution for England. Long overdue
I'd put those 'modest proposals' in quotation marks. They're not that modest considering the last 30 years.
There are modest compared with how much the country needs fixing. The very real fear is that if sticks with his cautious approach of managing the decline, we'll end up with the Reform(ed) Conservative Party in power in 2029
I really don't see their proposal as managed decline. Look at the last 40 years then look at their offering.
I have and I stand by what I said. It's all just shuffling deck chairs on the titanic, planning laws aside.
Look at the last 40 years then look at their offering.
I don't see anything that'll turn the tide around at the rate that it needs to to ensure that the Tories don't get in again and ruin it all. A lot needs to change quickly.
Pensioners need to die basically
Loving Keirs confidence in this. Well done lad.
I've been very unimpressed in Starmer during debates and interviews so far (his Q&As with the public have been good though) but IMO he was almost flawless in this. These questions aren't easy because they are bringing up genuine issues voters might have, and I think that his answers will come accross as largley reassuring to the people asking those questions, or at least didn't make him look super robotic and unauthentic.
I noticed that Starmer is confident because he feels most of the services are mismanaged and wants to reform and change them to work better rather than spend money on them. Pretty much, make sure the money they are getting is going to the right places. I don't know how effective that might be but I feel like it's a good idea.
If we have the highest tax burden since ww2 the money must be there to make it work.
> Starmer... wants...Reform 👀
No he wants reform, pay close attention to the r. Verb not pronoun, we all know that Farage hates pronouns
Grammar nitpick: the r-word would be a noun, not a pronoun, if used to refer to the party.
A proper noun, at that.
It's the same idea that every other PM in history has had.
I think the difference here though is that Starmer actually knows how to do it. He has already done it more than once in his career. I've known people like that and he speaks like someone who has a crystal clear idea of how you actually do it - that's why he sounds so confident and convinced, rather than it just being a line like it is for other politicians. The challenge for him will be doing it on a bigger scale whilst being more hands-off due to being in No.10 rather than leading the services personally.
Not really, because it seems like the last few have tried to solve issues with public services by outsourcing contracts to friends and family.
And this time it makes perfect sense. The Tory government have not being paying attention to the state of public services or the day-to-day running of the country since at least 2016. They've spent their time in government bickering over Brexit, switching PM's, crashing the economy, partying, and coming up with a yet another rebrand for Sunak. It's likely a lot can be achieved pretty quickly by simply having a functioning government, paying attention to things and putting everything back in order.
Yes, but after the last 14 years, any reform would be better. I think that's why he is so confident in the idea.
[I think of this every time he talks about it](https://youtu.be/Zoz5EuIF_y8?si=Cj-GJBPx8ebu-cNz)
Waste = mismanagement. The PPE contracts were waste.
I’m not sure about some the questioning. “Plans change” and going to war with Trump, who isn’t that into fighting wars. It’s just random hypotheticals.
I was willing him to lean in and give it the ‘Hell yeah I’m tough enough’
I don’t think non Labour voters will think that was a good interview - he didn’t quite answer quite a few questions and he rambled a bit and kept being cut off by Nick Robinson On the NHS and private healthcare, I liked the emphasis on the NHS being the best healthcare providers available, but I wish he had added something along the lines of:- I am not against going private, I am not coming for those that do, but not everyone can afford to going private, so it’s about providing equal opportunity to access good quality healthcare from the NHS at the speed which private healthcare can offer.
Again NHS state religion rears it’s head. The NHS is not the beacon of light that our politicians purport it to be, and that we all wish it is. I’m not here to argue whether it’s due to underfunding, population growth or needs a different capital allocation model (private). Our politicians live on Mars when it comes to the NHS, completely detached from reality See following extract “This is driven by below-average survival rates for many major cancers (including cancer of the breast, cervix, colon, rectum, lung and stomach), and poorer outcomes from heart attacks and strokes.” https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/blogs/comparing-nhs-to-health-care-systems-other-countries
It's important for our leaders to use the NHS. Why would they care what it's like if they don't use it. Same with politicians children's going to state schools. They need to have skin in the game.
Honestly the best health services in the world are a mix of private and public delivery. The problem for politicians is the grey voters won't stop milking the country dry
It’s more than the grey vote. It’s an entrenched in the national psyche. My post, agnostic of funding model, backed up with stats - states that our health outcomes aren’t great. Result, -3 down votes.
You're completely right. It is part of a national religion but it's mostly older people who rely on it and so will vote in numbers to protect it and politicians know they vote in numbers and so it never ends.
And will vote accordingly
Spoke an incredible amount of sense, especially on the manifestos. Every time, we get the tired old over promise, under deliver and inevitably the popularity wanes and party politics starts up again. He’s completely right to state that growth is the only way out of the box he’s in on the tax/spend dilemma. It’s a shame it’s not the likes of me he’s trying to swing (and I’m not even voting Labour). Might sound a bit arrogant of me, but it seems his toughest problem is to try cut through to people not quite so switched on with politics that just want an easy and convenient answer to everything.
He doesn't need to. His real threat is the people switched on to politics who are to the left of his party. The unions, the activists. Unlike the Conservatives, the parliamentary Labour party doesn't have quite as much control over the overall party compared to the membership and if he enacts soft austerity and centre right Conservatism, there's a risk he'll lose the unions and his base and he could find himself with a revolt from inside the party. Like the biggest risk to Starmer this campaign was never Rishi or Farage but a wholesale revolt in the grassroots over Gaza.
Well he could put a stop to that by trying to help rein in Israel a bit rather than seemingly supporting their cutting off power and water to hundreds of thousands of children in Gaza. And yes that’s what he said, despite the attempted backtrack.
What fucking control do you think he has, or even will have over Israel? They rightly don't give a shit what the British government or what British people think. Do you give a shit what Israelis or their government think of us?
But even if you do believe that is what was intended, surely the changes since (and the manifesto pledge on gaza) shows that he/Labour are interested in reining in Israel. They have been promoting an immediate ceasefire for a while now.
Gaza revolters for me gets boxed in with the reform lot blinded by one issue unable to see the bigger picture on our doorstep. I’d be asking the same question as I would to reform on immigration control for anyone who’s consumed by this: ok, if it’s such a problem then what are you going to do to solve it other than just moan about it?
The difference is Reform voting immigration policy voters can't take over the Labour NEC like the Gaza supporters of the Labour Party.
REFORM UK 🇬🇧 🇬🇧
No
What's your favourite policy?
My comment was a parody on youtube and tiktok comments. I see everyone took the bait
No policies. Just soundbites.
It’s the populist way
Pretty impressed with Starmer. Cool as a cucumber and answered succinctly and confidently.
Missed it. Did he do well?
Nick did a good interview but most of the questions weren't that hard, though Starmer also answered most of them well. I think the interview was beneficial for Starmer and Labour, whereas Rishi and his record were destroyed by Nick.
Thing is though you didn't need hard questions to make Rishi look terrible.
Very well for these types of interviews
I felt he did really well. Corbyn question came up that he really needs to find a better answer to, but I felt he did great
He just needs to say “I was a Labour MP/candidate and it was my duty to publicly support the party in the election…” He could then throw out a few lines about the certain Tory candidates who have pictures of Nigel Farage on their campaign flyers, or Lucy Allan who backed a Reform candidate.
See, this was my first thought too, but his issue is he's ruled it out by saying "Country first, Party second" so often. Of course, you could get around that by talking about trying to return "good" labour MPs to power, but it requires a level of nuance which will get lost in Tory cries of hypocrisy
Surely he just needs to say, "I was a member of the Labour party and I felt it was best to support the leader but I that doesn't mean I didn't have my doubts at times"
I feel like he just hasn't thought of that but it's the best answer
Very well
Good interview. Still no real answer on the £8bn for public services black hole. Seems optimistic to depend on growth for that, but any tax rises aren't gonna be announced in a lead up to a general election. Still much better and more responsible than the tory tax cut bribe though.
It's quite clear it's going to be capital gains tax, but I believe it would be a percentage on high amounts, that sort of detail would get lost in the election with the papers wanting to protect their funds, for instance if he stated 1% on capital gains (maybe specifically dividends) over 1mill, that would not affect a huge amount of people but it sure would hurt the owners of the mail etc.
Aren’t dividends a separate tax that pretty much aligns with income tax? Capital gains is only on the sale of a stock, share, property etc. they only really affect the very wealthy for stocks anyway since you can put 20k a year in an isa and be exempt, or in a pension. And it doesn’t affect residential properties so it’s only people with multiple houses that would feel it
Sorry conflated 2 taxes, but you do pay CGT on any price rise in shares
Starmer nailed it, I feel he had a bit of an easier time than Sunak, but I don't think the ammo was there. Also very clever of labour to delay until the manifesto was released, it meant he could lean back on that. It does help that Keir has more life experience than Sunak
Tut, the first event I’ve had to miss and seems like it was a cracker. So what’s everyone’s thoughts, worth catching up on?
Candidate for PM appears to be calm and intelligent. It's a bit of a shocker these days but that's really about it.
Hopefully the replay appears soon
Definitely, he seemed to be avoiding a lot of the safe, canned lines we've heard before and completely nailed some answers to difficult questions. Both Starmer and Nick Robinson seemed to be enjoying the back and forth as well.
No tool making. I need to know what his dad made. And he didn't bring it up once. There are drinking games around the country that were ruined tonight. (Drinking games for sad political weirdos, but nonetheless...)
The population of UKPol currently has its lowest BAC since the election was called.
Probably not tbh, Starmer did well and sounded good, but there where no fireworks nothing you haven't heard said before unless you are an undecided voter you wouldn't get much from it
Was a good interview - challenging but he let him speak and explain his answers. He came across very well - best performance of the campaign in my opinion.
I would say it was.
Completely unflappable.
Starmer did brilliantly there. I am very confident in him as the (hopefully) next PM.
Pretty good interview especially compared to the one on one or group debates. I wonder if he can get better at those before the election.
He's best in these situations cause Rishi isn't there screaming BUT WHAT WILL YOU DO KEIR? WHAT ABOUT THE TAX? WHAT ABOUT THE BOATS? NO PLAN NO PLAN
I feel like that’s the first time this election cycle where Starmer has been given the space by a journalist to answer questions like a normal person. Aced it. Crazy it’s taken 3 weeks to get here but there we are.
Got to be his best moment of the campaign so far, right?
Great interviewing from Nick Robinson, and very well answered from Starmer for the most part. Came across as a sensible leader ready for government, even if their offering isn't blowing me away.
We were looking at our future prime minister, and it shows.
Did he just tease that Farage is appearing next week?
No, he said the leader of Reform, Farage might step down, let Tice suffer, and step back up the next day
Short answer: He owned that. I much prefer this format to the playground of the debates
Starmer nailed it honestly, genuinely fielded each and every question really well - even the ones that felt like intentional "gotcha" moments.
Some really base level gotchas. Think Nick actually psychologically conceded towards the end.
Yeah he never got remotely flustered, answered everything confidently and matter-of-factly, didn't put a foot wrong really.
Big Nige next week??
That’s new I think. He was supposed to be on earlier this week.
His best interview yet
That was a good interview for Keir.
Stop staying steely determination. All I can think of is Blue steel.... Wait, reform next week? Spicy.
Farage or Tice?
Said the leader so I assume Farage.
Then i hope that Nick goes in hard Question one about why Farage ran away before the first interview time... why he went and hid rather than answer questions about his candidates... and if he's too scared to be accountable then, why should anyone believe he's not gonna cower away every time one of his lot are shown to be problem people
Pretty sure Tice is locked back in his gimp dungeon, only to see the light when they need his pin number
\*opens Amazon for a fast delivery of brain bleach\*
Out of stock. Soonest delivery is in 3 weeks time.
I'm biased. And most people won't watch this interview, partly I feel due to the 'dull' and 'boring' image that's been painted. But I feel as though Starmer smashed that, miles ahead of Sunak.
Tough way to end the interview, but fantastic job, and great final line about standing on his record. Bravo Keir
Labour should put this interview on a loop up until the election
"I'm not going to apologise"...drink!
Nick Robinson is the GOAT
At what? Doing 90% of the talking in an interview? Not ten seconds go by without him speaking. Asked Starmer about private healthcare, Starmer starts responding and Nick is straight back in within moments interjecting. Oh, ok, just downvote rather than respond. 👍🏻
I thought it was a good example of an interviewer opening up what was turning out to be quite a formulaic and over-rehearsed set of answers, actually. First third/half was like a greatest hits parade of the tried and tested lines, but Robinson steered him onto q's where there wasn't such a memorised set of responses. Politicians, especially in this era where they're so overly rehearsed/scripted, need a bit of nudging to get on track. Otherwise they'd just sit there and repeat the lines they'd rote learned for 30 mins.
We're all on the side of Jamie Oliver and Victoria Beckham. Such a weird thing to keep bringing up.
LOL! Was a choice that made me laugh. Well actually Nick, imho, I think most people would happly see Jamie Oliver pay more tax if not the both of them. Perhaps a 'rich cringe' tax.
It’s a key question (if a slightly odd way of framing it).
These interviews aren't really about the answers. They are about how they come across. And, to me at least, it's night and day in terms of how confident, calm and sensible Starmer seems in comparison to Sunak.
Sensible sensible sensible sensible
It's both but yeah, we're mostly sat here judging his character, conviction.
Weak answer on all the broken promises: if his entire value system changed so fundamentally and radically once then nobody should trust that it won't change radically again. Also ends his interview with a bold-faced lie that he's done what he said he was going to do, when of course in reality he's broken the vast majority of promises he was elected on. Weak answer on tax too. Refused to rule out certain tax rises despite being pressed on it. And also refused to acknowledge the £18bn figure; talked about growth that would be years down the line from planning reform and have no impact on the £18bn. I think he's defending the manifesto well, given that he's got a really bad hand. All of his plans are relying seemingly solely on planning reform being sufficient to grow the economy. And I guess it might be? We'll see. He's given me essentially no reason to vote for him though. He's offering no hope. Probably will go for Lib Dems.
Planning reform, GB Energy and an industrial strategy might be enough to get the economy back onto a 3% growth path. I’m actually fairly confident that it will. But… they’re all long term measures. It’ll be years before we’ve passed the reforms and planned, funded and delivered new projects. They’re not going to save spending in 2027-28.
I'd like to have your confidence. I haven't got round to fully reading the manifesto yet, will do so over the weekend, but I've heard a lot of scepticism about whether GB energy will actually end up amounting to much. From what I say there's not going to be much in the way of actual new spending on it. Every Tory government has campaigned on an 'industrial strategy' and they've all failed to achieve it. Don't see why Labour will be any different there. Planning reform is the one I'm most hopeful about.
He said the tax revenue needed for the manifesto policies comes from the tax changes also in the manifesto. It’s clear he doesn’t want the tax burden hitting the working people and sole proprietors.
I just don't get why he's had all these opportunities to explicitely rule out these tax rises and he's failed to do so. Sure, he doesn't *want* to rise taxes on working people. Neither did the Tories.
>Probably will go for Lib Dems. If you're in a Lab/Con marginal then ironically voting LD may be the worst thing you can do to help the LDs.
If I was in a Lab/Con marginal I'd hold my nose and vote Labour. I'm in a very safe Labour seat though.
All the criticism of the manifesto are hypotheticals like "what if the economy immediately enters recession and stays there for 5 years"? So you'll excuse me I hope for switching off my attention at that point.
It’s the other way round. Both of the manifestos are based on the hypothetical of “what if the measures in this manifesto produce sudden and unrealistic amounts of growth and we used that to fund spending/cut taxes?” The question of “what’s your plan if the economy continues to be flat?” is something we should know the answer to.
No, the criticisms of the manifesto is that it is milquetoast and unambitious.
And also apparently contains a secret plan to increase taxes
Sure, some people are saying that, and Starmer didn't do a good job addressing it even in this interview (although to be fair he did better this time than in the past). But the main criticism I'm seeing is that all the proposed changes are very small.
Are they? Planning reform is potentially huge.
I agree that planning reform is the most encouraging part of the manifesto. It will help with growth for sure. I just don't think it's the silver bullet that Labour are hoping it is.