MPs vote against investigation into whether Starmer misled parliament
Posted by F0urLeafCl0ver@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 46 comments
Posted by F0urLeafCl0ver@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 46 comments
debasing_the_coinage@reddit
COWARDS
When it's spicy rhetoric about Israel from minor officials or racist uncles posting xenophobic vitriol online the UK has a formidable determination to find and punish the culprits. But a pedophile named Ambassador? Well let's not get hasty here
BeardySam@reddit
Why does it need an investigation? It’s out, we know the information?. It’s a bad decision and it’s been sorted, there’s not a lot to investigate other than to drag this out for months and waste a lot of money.
This is performative politics from the opposition, they never held an inquiry for Dominic Cummins, Nadim Zahawi, Owen Paterson, Chris Pincher, Nathan Gill, the Rwanda plan, the mini budget, the proroguing of parliament, or the missing report on Russian interference.
GianfrancoZoey@reddit
I see we've reached the 'well at least they're not as bad as the Conservatives!' stage of centrist cope
wizardeverybit@reddit
Who would you rather have than Labour?
BioSemantics@reddit
The Greens?
wizardeverybit@reddit
Populism is not the answer. The Greens would be a disaster for the country. Leaving NATO and getting rid of nukes are dangerous things to be talking about with in the current geopolitical climate, not to mention the fact that Polanski has denied the Russian genocide in Ukraine. Their stance on nuclear power is also backwards for a so called Green party, not to mention the rampant NIMBYism. Polanski has also proven himself economically illiterate (see his interview on TRIP, for example. Their immigration policy is also incredibly naive. They would not be as bad as the tories or reform, but still dreadful
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
Good diatribe. Lots of extra points for declaring the Green Party economically illiterate in comparison to… any other party in the UK?
wizardeverybit@reddit
The UK's economy has been growing under Rachel Reeves. The Greens are one step away from fully supporting MMT. Polanski has said that it is not important to pay back depts, for example. I noticed how you didn't address any of my other points, like his denial of the Russian genocide
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
Rachel Reeves, the supply-side economics proponent who cancelled major infrastructure projects, dropped winter fuel payments? And raised taxes?
Didn’t Polanski say that Putin was a threat to the UK? Does he support Putin invading Ukraine or something? Or is this just part of a whisper campaign as anyone to the left of Hard Right Tory is a threat to the UK and has to be smeared?
wizardeverybit@reddit
We have to sacrifice something if we want to raise other benefits. Here is a direct quote from Polabski:
It is the media's job to criticise politicians and dig out scandals. To write off all criticism as a smear campaign is like Trump claiming the "fake news media" is suffering from "TDS"
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
This is really funny. You criticise one party for having a stupid understanding of economics but your preferred party has an even worse understanding of economics. I don’t support MMT but I also don’t support SSE, trickle-down or any other stupid “let the rich get richer and we will all benefit!” economic policy. Let me guess, you oppose putting more money into the NHS and getting to net zero before 2240? And you oppose a wealth tax.
wizardeverybit@reddit
No, I support a wealth tax, the NHS and net zero. I also understand that you can't have everything.
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
What other points? “Polanski bad” isn’t a point.
wizardeverybit@reddit
Russia, NATO, nuclear, NIMBYism and immigration, for example
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
Russia bad. I’m pretty sure they are more anti-Russia than Trump is. I disagree with leaving NATO but I think trump is going to destroy it. Nuclear I agree with them on - all the nuclear power plant projects cost about double the amount expected and take about twice as ping to deliver. It’s a waste of money to build them. Just look at Hinkley Point C. NIMBYism accusations come from the tabloids. I ignore the tabloids, everything they say is wrong. Immigration I also agree with the greens party on - why throw people in prison for minor immigration offences, and why stop immigrants from working? If they are refugees why make them suffer?
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
I have to say, you are critical of what Polanski said about Putin. Are you critical of the very real support Starmer has given to aid Israel’s genocide? Or is that somehow different?
jgs952@reddit
Keynes (1942) had the general answer for you because you never ask "where does the money come from?" as it's an inapplicable and illegitimate question (one main reason an understanding via MMT of how our economy works and the nature of money is so important:
Let me begin by telling you how I tried to answer an eminent architect who pushed on one side all the grandiose plans to rebuild London with the phrase: ' Where's the money to come from?' 'The money?' I said. 'But surely, Sir John, you don't build houses with money? Do you mean that there won't be enough bricks and mortar and steel and cement?'
'Oh no', he replied, 'of course there will be plenty of all that'.
'Do you mean', I went on,' that there won't be enough labour? For what will the builders be doing if they are not building houses?'
'Oh no, that's all right', he agreed.
'Then there is only one conclusion. You must be meaning, Sir John, that there won't be enough architects'. But there I was trespassing on the boundaries of politeness. So I hurried to add: 'Well, if there are bricks and mortar and steel and concrete and labour and architects, why not assemble all this good material into houses?'
But he was, I fear, quite unconvinced. 'What I want to know', he repeated, 'is where the money is coming from'.
To answer that would have got him and me into deeper water than I cared for, so I replied rather shabbily: ' The same place it is coming from now'. He might have countered (but he didn't): 'Of course I know that money is not the slightest use whatever. But, all the same, my dear sir, you will find it a devil of a business not to have any'.
It all depends what he really had in mind. He might have meant that the burden of the national debt, the heavy taxation, the fact that the banks have lent so much money to the Government and all that, would make it impossible to borrow money to pay the wages of the makers of the raw material, the building labour, and even the architects.
Or he might have meant something quite different. He could have pointed out very justly that those who were making houses would have to be supported meanwhile with the means of subsistence. Will the rest of us, after supporting ourselves, have enough margin of output of food and clothing and the like, directly or by foreign trade, to support the builders as well as ourselves whilst they are at work?
In fact was he really talking about money? Or was he talking about resources in general—resources in a wide sense, not merely bricks and cement and architects?
If the former, if it was some technical problem of finance that was troubling him, then my answer was good and sufficient. For one thing, he was making the very usual confusion between the problem of finance for an individual and the problem for the community as a whole. Apart from this, no doubt there is a technical problem, a problem which we have sometimes bungled in the past, but one which today we understand much more thoroughly. It would be out of place to try to explain it in a few minutes on the air, just as it would be to explain the technical details of bridge- building or the internal combustion engine or the surgery of the thyroid gland. As a technician in these matters I can only affirm that the technical problem of where the money for reconstruction is to come from can be solved, and therefore should be solved.
And on Polanksi:
He clearly slipped up here as it makes people worry he is soft on Putin. But quite clearly he was referring to Trump threaten to "wipe out an entire civilisation tonight" regarding Iran. That is extreme threat of nuclear anihilation.
But you're right and I agree that there's no point comparing some "hierarchy of cartoon villains" in the world. Putin has equally threatened, and acted, to cause immense destruction and suffering and implicitly threatens use of nukes all the time. Although the war in Ukraine has been been classified internationally or academically as genocide I don't believe? But it really doesn't matter.
Bottom line is, Polanksi mis-spoke slightly in an interview but he's always consistently been firmly anti Russian which is the Green position.
wizardeverybit@reddit
Thank you for an in depth response instead of assumptions and name calling. One of my main worries with MMT money printing or hyper borrowing is that it would lead to very high inflation. In your analogy about the architect, they would need the money to buy the resources and pay the labourers. Hardly anyone works for free, and we need money to be able to buy necessities and luxuries. Why would a builder choose to work for free instead of taking a different job that pays them well.
My point about Polanski and Putin has a few different layers. I have yet to see him explain himself, but he is very quick to jump on other people's comments. Anyone can misspeak, but as the leader of a major political party you will be subject to extra scrutiny. I often see people dismiss scrutiny of politicians they like (be it Polanski, Starmer, Corbyn, Badenoch, Farage, Trump or any other prominent politician) as a simple smear. Papers tend to have biases, and it is important to understand that the Daily Mail is more right wing than the Mirror, and sources like BBC and Reuters are more reliable, but it is important to see and understand what all of the papers discover. Tabloids have uncovered lots of scandals.
I would say that Polanski and the Greens have been relatively soft on Putin vs other parties. When he is talking about leaving NATO and wanting to talk to Putin and convince him to get rid of his nuclear arsenal it worries me that he either naively or maliciously doesn't view Putin as a threat to the UK. The genocide denial, when the Greens are constantly (often justifiably) quick to call out the genocide in the Middle East.
jgs952@reddit
Have another read. The entire point Keynes is brilliantly making in this speech is that there are no financial constraints. The constraints are always real in nature. If you hit real constraints (e.g. running out of architects to hire at the given wage rate), the state either has to bid up the wages to attract them away from private uses (this can be inflationary), slow the pace of state programmes such that you lower your demand for those scarce real resources, or enact policy tightening in some way (e.g. through tighter fiscal policy or credit policy) to release the architects from private employment dynamically such that the state can continue buying their services at the current wage rates.
At no point is there ever a problem of where the "money" comes from for the "community as a whole". MMT's entire framework is built upon this core idea that money is merely an organising tool for real resources. It never runs out or acts as the limiting factor.
Once we adjust our framing and policy paradigm to fully accept and understand this, we will be more informed about what's possible (in real terms) and what's not. Please never trust a politician who says "we can't afford it" because they just don't know what they're talking about.
Reeves said "Anything we cannot afford, we cannot do", whereas Keynes far more accurately said "Anything we can actually do, we can afford". The two are poles apart in framing an implication. MMT is all about recognising that.
From my perspective, Zack is reasonably saying that a nation should never cut off attempts at dialogue with other nations if they are possible. That doesn't mean capitulation in any way, but it means it would be hubristic and pointlessly "geopolitically macho" for him to say he'd never engage with Putin, who like it or not, is in charge of Russia. Zack also said he's maintain diplomatic relations with Israel despite fully recognising how abhorrent that regime is.
I don't for a second thing Polanski is denying the atrocities of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. And yes, many acts probably amount to genocide at least under a few of the characteristics of it (although again, international scholars haven't classified as it as genocide have they?), but it's just bad framing to put Polanski and the Greens as soft on Russia, really.
BeardySam@reddit
You talk about smears and then casually repeat all the most basic tabloid talking points…
The press machine will actually promote Greens and Reform because they both eat into Labours vote.
We should all have a think about why our algorithms are telling us X and Y about Polanski, and consider what they aren’t telling us about the improvements the the UK by Labour
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
The fact that she cut the winter fuel payments is a tabloid smear? Really? While you repeat labour talking points about how terrible the greens are? Even going so far as to “always mention the greens and reform in the same sentence.” Sound familiar?
BeardySam@reddit
I didn’t say winter fuel was a smear? I didn’t say the greens are terrible either? Please don’t misquote me.
I’m trying to explain that we hear constant bad news about Labour and constant positives about Reform and Green, and that has an effect on our perceptions and talking points
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
I don’t read the tabloids. They are rubbish. I think the greens are making sense in a country where Labour is trying to go far right to combat Reform. It won’t work. They will just lose votes.
BeardySam@reddit
The algorithms that affect what you see on socials are also part of the tabloid media, ino.
If you see lots of shorts talking about how X is bad and Y is good, that is an external opinion being fed to us
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
I don’t see shorts of anything. That’s not news, that’s Facebook and YouTube propaganda.
You are desperately searching for a way to discount and brush aside my opinion based on an assumption that I consume idiotic tabloid and tech giant propaganda. Why is that? Is it because I suggested that Labour is currently doing terrible job? Is it just you attempting to smear me because I’m ideologically left wing?
BeardySam@reddit
I’m not desperate, this is just having a conversation. I’m not trying to smear you personally, I’ve been trying to talk quite generally. I do have a different opinion to you, but that’s ok.
Going back to an earlier comment, that the UK economy is growing - you responded by saying ‘winter fuel and tax increases’. You are repeating quite general talking points about Rachel Reeves and Labour, and haven’t really addressed the point about the economy being better and the greens having some fairly uncosted ideas but as you say, you aren’t affected by any media at all so that’s ok.
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
The economy is growing, and that’s good. It’s not making a lot of people’s lives easier, though. Nothing feels easier, does it?
The tax increases penalise lower income workers, of course. It was just the wrong thing to do in my opinion.
I think the Greens should release coatings. I think the Conservatives, reform and Labour should too.
No, I said I don’t read tabloids and watch stupid shorts pushed on me by FB.
BeardySam@reddit
Yes I agree, the economy is very removed from the actual reality of people’s lives, and I think part of that is an obsession with measuring money as opposed to measuring benefits.
So for example if we consider public transport as a benefit to society, it clearly pays for itself. But if it has to be a profitable business, then it doesn’t matter if it helps people travel to jobs and shops etc. The incentives are wrong.
The (slightly boring) answer to this is to change our spending priorities, which Labour is doing in a big way, but spending takes time to have an effect. My point is that it’s easy to complain about any negative changes in the meantime - the removal of some subsidies or the small changes to inheritance legislation when people want big changes immediately. But if you don’t mention where the money is going, and don’t hear about how we might be benefitting in 3-5 years time, then yes, their behaviour might seem insane.
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
So just vote for Labour and hope that there’s a plan?
avroLancasterBPR1@reddit
British greens made the key mistake of having an absolute mouth breather as their leader.
wizardeverybit@reddit
And decide to have every policy voted on by every single member, which means some insane policies get voted through
Dx_Suss@reddit
That's what got Labour into power, why would it stop now?
NoMoFascisto@reddit
this is exactly what got us in the states. Dems only willing to allow in former republicans but never anyone they would consider "left" of the establishment
eventually the establishment was center-right and the voting base is left. Massive crisis incoming for the dems
Besmirching_Badger@reddit
They generally suffered consequences.
Starmer has repeatedly made shit up. Which is bizarre because he didn't even need to. Instead he's tried to throw others under the bus and brazenly lied about what happened, rather than just saying 'yeah we thought it would be a good idea to get mandy to cosy up to trump, but it was a mistake in retrospect'.
BioSemantics@reddit
Hilarious neoliberal whataboutism. It hasn't been sorted. No one has explained why the decisions was made and no one has indicated a way a similar decision won't be made in the future.
BeardySam@reddit
I mean, it’s pretty clear Mandelson would have been quite a good ambassador to Trump and it was a pragmatic decision at the foreign office to deal with an irascible man. They need a slimy guy to brown-nose the president and massage his ego, and having him in the Epstein files actually ingratiated him to Trumps circle as “one of the boys”.
Now, that’s unethical sure (at least, to UK sensibilities) but are we really asking why this was done? It was done to benefit the UKs relationships.
Icy_Fish_2154@reddit
Bush should have been investigated for his lies to Congress and the world over Iraq.
Not investigating politicians for fraud, possible perjury for bad governance is what's wrong with society.
The French had a solution to bad governments. When politicians aren't scared, they are corrupt.
Make politicians scared again.
Thouispure69@reddit
If UK cared about Iraq war, Mandelson wouldn have ever been considered.
I give it 3 months before UK and France join America in the war vs Iran at this rate. It'd be wholly consistent with the political makeup of that backwards nation.
wizardeverybit@reddit
Says the American
LineOfInquiry@reddit
Tbf, those racist uncles were posting death threats or calls for violence, not just random racist stuff
Chimp3h@reddit
Maybe clean up your own swamp before you start shooting this way Cletus
Thouispure69@reddit
Seems like a defacto vote on Starmer's leadership.
I don't know what's more sad. Labour continuing to be tory lite, or that there's not even a whiff of internal resistance to change course and pick a different leader. Cause if Starmer really was about to be rolled, surely there'd be more dissent on this vote.
Kimantha_Allerdings@reddit
Insiders have been saying Starmer is a dead man walking since Gorton & Denton. It’s just, as others have said, if you change leader now, then a) you’re going into even more elections while appearing to be a party in chaos which will make the outcome worse than it otherwise would have been, and b) you need to find someone else to be the fall guy when the party is completely wiped out, as it’s expected to be
So this isn’t a case of there being no movement to change leader. That’s already basically a done deal. It’s just being done with an understanding of the practicalities of British party politics, so as to least harm the party as a whole
nikmah@reddit
Even though I don’t follow UK politics that much I think it’s safe to say that Starmer is done for, this is probably more about Labour remaining in power and avoid doing Nigel Farage any favours and let him become the new PM.
Starmer will eventually be replaced and UK will end up having ineffective government that lacks authority from the democratic perspective and is basically just crippled.
NotYetFlesh@reddit
A lot of people are on the "wait and see" cope until the local elections next week. After that comes the true test for Starmerism.
LordofRangard@reddit
this isn’t even “we’ve investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong” this is “we’ve decided we don’t even need to be investigated by ourselves” lmao, next level