Why has Keir Starmer cancelled “Levelling Up”? | The New Statesman
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 08. 2024
- Labour want to distinguish themselves from Boris Johnson's "levelling up". What are they planning instead?
Subscribe here: / @newstatesman
"If they can get wage growth, that'll be something that they can go to people and say, 'look, we've increased wages' and they will communicate the success of their plan in those terms"
Hannah Barnes, Rachel Cunliffe and Freddie Hayward answer listener questions on Labour's growth strategy.
--
During the first few weeks of this new Labour government we’ll continue to bring you daily episodes with the politics team to discuss and analyse the new direction being taken for the country. Subscribe to the New Statesman on CZcams to stay informed.
--
The New Statesman podcast is now on CZcams. Anoosh Chakelian and New Statesman colleagues including political editor Andrew Marr discuss the latest in UK politics news, helping you understand the forces shaping British politics today.
Watch all the latest episodes of the New Statesman podcast here: • The New Statesman Podcast
The New Statesman brings you unrivalled analysis of of the latest UK and international politics. On our CZcams channel you’ll find insight on the top news and global current affairs stories, as well as insightful interviews with politicians, advisers and leading political thinkers, to help you understand the political and economic forces shaping the world.
With regular contributions from our writers including Political Editor Andrew Marr and Anoosh Chakelian - host of the New Statesman podcast - we’ll help you understand the world of politics and global affairs from Westminster to Washington and beyond.
Subscribe on CZcams: / @newstatesman
Sign up to Morning Call, the daily UK politics newsletter from the New Statesman: morningcall.su...
Subscribe to the New Statesman from just £1 per week: www.newstatesm...
They haven’t cancelled anything, Tories never had a levelling up plan, it was just a slogan
The reason Labour cancelled "Levelling Up" was because (a) Levelling up is largely what Labour are all about and (b) as used by the Tories, and specifically by Johnson, it was never more than a gimmick to gull the gullible. I'm glad it's gone.
That’s not true, it was a genuine plan to spend more money on the northern red wall constituencies. Covid and labour have killed it. And your still whinging.
assuming that Starmer is actually going to try.
'Levelling Up' is nothing but an insult to anyone living North of Watford. A patronising term from Old Etonian Tories, implying they give a toss about anywhere other than the Home Counties. Devolve actual powers to the Regions, decentralise Government and we'll grow ourselves.
Yeah, you'll definitely grow yourselves and councils won't be overrun by NIMBYs that want to stop every single project and drive investment away.....
Cynically I think the Tories could beat labour by offering the same again, as the electorate seem to prefer the Tories to govern generally.
You just have to understand what it actually means. Read it as "leveling" as in "to destroy utterly" and "up" as in "the north" - at which point it becomes obvious that it really was an accurate description of Tory policy all along.
Labour plans to destroy the NIMBYs@@gabrieldsouza6541
This podcast is proving one of my favourite ways of keeping up to date with the progress of the new government. This episode features three impressive young journalists, while others feature Andrew Marr, who is always interesting and full of wisdom.
he cancelled it because it was mostly bulsht.
Thank god they did cancel levelling up it’s the most pointless devoid soundbite with no real policy substance behind it since getting brexit done
Gosh. I’m from New Mexico, a state in the Southwest of the US. There is no one I know in the US who is as informed and articulate reporting on American politics as you three are about British politics. I watch The New Statesman [ When will you change that name? ] videos mostly to hear the way intelligence and professionalism can be employed in the service of the public.
Why should they change the name? The New Statesman is, to quote Wikipedia, "a British political and cultural news magazine. Founded as a weekly review of politics and literature on 12 April 1913, it was at first connected with Sidney and Beatrice Webb and other leading members of the socialist Fabian Society, such as George Bernard Shaw".
This is the channel produced by that magazine, so naturally it shares its name.
@@annalieff-saxby568 Okay.
Levelling up.. Part of it being the Network North initiative which produced a poster boasting 350 mil to repair potholes in London.
Instead of saying "you failed in that" you could say "you succeeded in that" and be positive.
Growth may be difficult.
More and more of us are aiming to buy less stuff, buy fewer cars, and tread more lightly on the planet.
Added to that is a growing realisation among the young that they should be pacing themselves physically, given the state of the NHS and the likelihood of being forced to work well into advanced old age before they receive a pension.
The desire for more personal time (to cook, to meet friends, to exercise, and indeed to start a side hustle) are all factors that also help reduce productivity.
But what would boost productivity would be a comprehensive effort to end this disastrous housing crisis, through the provision of genuinely affordable social housing for those who might typically be on the minimum wage, yet still have the same aspirations as the rest of us. If we were to achieve that, and quickly, then young people would almost certainly be able to enjoy the sort of work life balance that can boost productivity enormously.
Maybe they should aspire to educate themselves and get a better job too
Growth without investment through taxes or borrowing is a fantasy
@@user-iz9co4qf6z that's not necessarily the aim of young people any more. Huge student loans, and the lack of well paid jobs, means many young people are looking at other ways to improve their situation, as evidenced in a recent UK survey, showing that 40 percent of young people now had a side hustle.
The notion that young workers are willing to bust a gut, in order to enrich their employers, is a false one, because those same young workers now have so many opportunities to work hard to enrich themselves.
Which, given the lack of any real job security these days, together with an absence of a decent final salary pension, is only to be expected.
But in any event, many young people no longer see working long hours, to the detriment of their health and social lives, as a target to which they should aspire. In fact, for many young people, their is a desire to live as frugally as possible, invest wisely, and then retire as early as possible, perhaps as early as their late 30s or early 40s.
Yes, why has he cancelled a meaningless slogan? Truly baffling.
Can’t wait to see how fantastic everything gets
This is a pretty excellent summary of the caveats in measuring a region's success by GDP or GDP Per Capita. I'm glad Labour are at least using GDP Per Capita. Though I'd say it'd also make sense to include some measure of equal distribution.
Hopefully more and more people are now getting that uncontrolled immigration was generating one good metric for the government, which they would shout about, and ten bad ones they wouldn't.
One problem with attempts to make the North and South more equal economically is that capable, productive people with higher incomes/better prospects in the North more often migrate south. The result of this can be seen in the small but significant difference in average IQ scores between north and south. The same pattern has been found in many other countries (though it is not necessarily north vs south - just regional differences). The most important driver of this is the migration of capable people.
If the stark difference in cost of accommodation between north and south is not enough to encourage northerners to stay put I don't know what is. Perhaps it is time to make more people aware of this and encourage northerners to stay put and make the north better.
Fingers crossed and hope for the best 🤣
The government should support aspirational abd innovative people in their endeavours rather than assume big public spending initiatives will deliver growth. In return theae people should return some of their returns into a growth fund
Growth in Wales must reduce the divide between north and south.
It’s not in Labour’s interest to make everyone wealthier, who would vote for them otherwise…
Well even the middle classes and upper classes aren’t voting for conservatives anymore either, as they realise lots of money but sewage in water systems and poor services isn’t a good trade off. So maybe the wealthier among us wouldn’t vote at all 🤷🏽♀️ labour needs to instil a more informed society so we vote in a more informed way rather than just to make more money.
Levelling up was never a thing, so he hasn’t cancelled it. He has just done what the Tories couldn’t do, and said it was never a thing. Boris talked about it, so did Gove, Sunak said all the money was going to Tory seats anyway!
Why does growth have to come down to each worker, working harder? The metric is wrong.
Totally agree 👍 It is investment that will push the GDP.
Most here seem to have it wrong. Levelling up was real. I live in Northern Ireland and there were plenty of projects running with Levelling Up funding. I suppose those projects don't have to do with Labour's narrative so rather than pick and choose, we all have to lose out. A pity.
There was barely anything to cancel. The Tories took away tens of billions in need-based revenue support grant, and replaced it with a fraction of that amount in levelling up. The test for me will be if that revenue support grant or an equivalent amount of economic development and infrastructure comes back for poorer regions of the country.
I would use the UN Human Development Index for the country and subdivisions, which looks at GDP per capita, education, and life expectancy for each UN country and within their regions. So you can see if Yorkshire, Wales or Scotland HDI has increased as well as the UK-wide average.
The only way to stimulate growth is to stop sucking the cash out of ordinary people's pockets through taxes, interest rates, and above all rents and property prices. Labour has ZERO policies for tackling property prices and rents. Destroying green belt will not work - its just wanton degradation of the quality of life. Kick out corporate property investors, control the letting agents, ban buy to let lending and cut business rates. We don't need government schemes, just give us back our MONEY!
Remember when Labour promised a £5 unemployment benefit increase and dropped it when Blair was elected.
So what happens to the cash pot from levelling up?
At 3:35 a good point is made about the low relevance of 'growth'. That's the issue that was on my mind from the start in this conversation. I don't want to spend more; I want to have a better life. If adjustments are made and technologies are implemented that allow people to have better, longer lives more easily (and so with less work and expenditure needed) then I think we will all be happy. In principle we could have negative growth and still be enjoying improving lives.
I suspect the reason that governments want 'growth' is that it allows them to raise more tax, do something about their debt, and yet not have to change tax rates.
What you are describing would probably still be growth in real terms. Just in a deflationary environment which is bad for other reasons.
@@sebzim4500 No, it would not be growth. Growth in GDP is inflation adjusted but I'm talking about being able to live our lives with less resource consumption, including less work. For example, if a gadget that costs £1,000 today can be bought for £200 in 5 years time because of improvements in technology and manufacturing then I can have the same life for less resource consumption and less money spent (inflation adjusted i.e. in 'real terms'). The way inflation is measured currently, that price drop would be considered 'deflation' but it would really be the welcome result of increased efficiency. That kind of 'deflation' is not a bad thing. It's progress that we need a lot more of to be sustainable.
It is a concern that politicians and journalists still routinely talk about growth as an important goal even for economies that are already highly developed and desperately need to become sustainable.
@@matthewleitch1 yep, and I think this is a great point. Because the fact is, everything is way cheaper than it used to be. Computers, smartphones, TVs, books, movies, music, these used to be luxuries, and now they are basics. Yet we feel like we have less, why? Because rents are so much higher and food is so much more expensive. Think of how expensive a 32” flatscreen was in 2004, and how much it is now. If our government had managed to do the same with rents, we wouldn’t be suffering as a nation. But that would require us to build loads of housing in places where people live, or create jobs where people don’t, and no one can figure out how to do either.
To be fair, the Tories were never serious about levelling up. I hope Labour are, believe it when/if we see it though. It feeos like they are praying for growth though, rather than investing for it. Without talk of redistribution, it also sounds like rebranded trickle down economics.
Of course what you could do to help working people is reduce the basic rate of Income Tax by 2p and counter balance it by creating a higher rate of income tax for earnings over £100,000 at say 65p plus stopping the City wide boys who fix their income as Capital Gains which varies from 10p to 18p :-)
The effective tax rate from over 100k to 125k is already 60%. If you make the income tax rate 65% then the effective rate becomes 83% from 100-125k.
@@lonyo5377true true :-) my bad! Thanks
When you can clearly define "Leveling Up" you can claim it has been cancled. Untill then all he cancled was a hollow, repeatable slogan that did precisely nothing.
Because meaningless jargon is meaningless.
New Labour grew the economy by allowing private sector debt to increase by 100pp as a % of GDP. It paid for infrastructure investment using grossly expensive and inefficient PFIs and PPP that hamstrung future investment. Everything I've heard from Labour now suggests they're going to make exactly the same mistakes.
Who told you all this? The Voices?
I think it will rely far more on foreign private investment than it did 27 years ago
That’s not the main reason for growth during new Labour period
Your going to have to do two things you going to have increase debit and taxes in selected area to invest in growth. That only way that the UK is going to get out it current situation and you need to "Innovate" the dumb Tories don't know how spur "Innovation", if you don't then guess what you are running fricking museum that why the United Kingdom's economy crashed.
You gave away the computer to America now people like Bill Gates and Jensen Huang are rich and the UK are poor. Just remember in the 18th century the rich men where British not American.
Once again Bold Aspirations - what will they specifically DO to achieve this.
I optimistically await further details.
Zero hours contracts gone
This section does not really describe anything that you might reasonably call a plan
Well that was a Tory scam anyways
Because "Levelling Up" was a scam.
What next, cancel The Big Society? 😏
An NI border poll would release £10bn a year.
You may be right that growth does not resonate with so many people - but that is not actually true. For example, higher growth would generate more money for public services.
NS are Labour cheerleaders, so I won’t expect a fair critique here.
Your lack of analysis is disappointing. Please have some guests on to explain the issues in more depth. One can get gdp growth through spending so it is easy to do. You need to hold Labour to account on reversing Brexit. That is the key thing they can do and easiest.
You say it is bold but it’s so easily gamed.
Can't these guys talk a little slower?!
Starmer rubber stamps water bill price rises UP TO 44%!!!!
@@dl1973 He's allowed them to apply FURTHER price rises of between 22% and 44%. The establishment elite continues.
@@dl1973 Deleted? So again - He has just allowed FURTHER rises of between 22% and 44%. The establishment continues.
@@stevejones3868again it’s Ofwat that permitted the rise it was nothing to do with Keir Starmer.
@@southpawjinx1 Go do some reading and come back later.
@@stevejones3868 Doesn't matter how many times you keep posting the same falsehood it will never make t right.
The simple fact that any rises will not take place until 2025 and they have still no been signed off shows just how much you don't understand what is happening.
We now have a Labour government who have to correct 14 years of mismanagement and it won't happen overnight because that is not how life really works. Oh and once again it won't matter how many times you keep posting falsehoods they will never be right.
Save Britain get labour out.before he gives the country and economy a death sentence
Liz Truss already tried that
You must have been in a coma for the last 14 years of the Tory Shyte show that has all but destroyed steel manufacturing, the NHS, Education, the auto industry, fishing and farming economy. It doesn't get any worse than what the Tories have done to the UK.
Oooooh a Liz Truss fan!! CRASH THOSE ECONOMIES,eh?
The tory party has already buried it
Labour will improve this country
Labour will spend like fk
As always. Ten years conservatives will be back I to tighten the belt. As always. What plant do youse live on.
Taxation and debt are at record highs after 14 years of conservative government. How is that ‘tightening the belt’?
@@stanleysdadMight be something to do with covid, don’t you think?
First commenter can't even spell. Tory