Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

We don't want the government to lurch to the left

583 replies

Bargepole45 · 10/02/2026 13:57

I am absolutely astounded that Labour think it's democratic to decide that they can lurch to the left despite being elected with a very clear promise to not tax and spend. I believe this is absolutely not what the general public want and I am really worried that the economy isn't going to survive this and we will end up with an IMF bailout that will lead to very painful spending cuts for our most vulnerable.

Please vote:
YABU :I want Labour to lurch to the left in order to increase taxation and spending
YANBU: I don't want Labour to lurch to the left and would be against further tax and spending rises

OP posts:
Thread gallery
11
DiySteve · 11/02/2026 09:32

Pinkearedcows · 11/02/2026 09:04

Consequences? That sounds ominous. Do you mean we might end up with Farage at the helm?

Show quote history

That you simply address my last sentence and ignore the rest, speaks volumes.

Original poster
Bargepole45 · 11/02/2026 09:30

Pinkearedcows · 11/02/2026 09:27

Any shift to the left is going to be slight. Starmer is not going to gallop towards communism. He is a centrist.

Just because something was not in it manifesto, that doesn't mean a government can't do it. Government policy responds to changing times, it is nothing new. If we needed a GE everytime a new, non-manifesto policy was introduced we'd have endless GEs.

Show quote history

I never suggested a government must stick to their manifesto completely. That would be impractical and lead to political instability. If however you have been elected as a centrist party and want to now be a left wing government then this isn't just a change of policy in some areas. It's a fundamental shift in direction. This should require a new political mandate

OP posts:
Haemagoblin · 11/02/2026 09:30

Bargepole45 · 10/02/2026 14:36

It sets a precedent though doesn't it? How far can you move away from your original manifesto before you need to call another election. Theoretically you could implement some very extreme policies that were never on the manifesto if you have a high enough majority.

Show quote history

That is literally what the Tories did over their most recent tenure. They went from Cameron's 'caring conservatism (obviously bollocks but people believed it) to Truss's 'let's just smash shit up and see what happens' via fucking Boris Johnson. It's perfectly legitimate practice unfortunately, as MANIFESTOS ARE NOT BINDING. Whether they should be or not is a different debate. But this is why you can't be robotic about voting (look at the manifesto pledges and decide which options you like best). You have to consider who the individuals are with clout in the party, their philosophies, and their paymasters. You have to consider their record. And, fundamentally, you have to take a punt. Most of all you have to be ready to strike and turn out in the street if the government overreaches, because that and the ballot box every few years are ultimately the only powers we little people have.

Original poster
Bargepole45 · 11/02/2026 09:28

Haemagoblin · 11/02/2026 09:25

I struggle to see how Reform could possibly 'lurch to the right' post election. They are absolutely upfront and clear about the fact they are fascists. If people vote for them, that's what they're voting for. Unless they are just too painfully dumb to see that, and you can't account for people being gormless when they vote.

Show quote history

Reform is absolutely not a fascist party. They are a right wing populist party. There is an important distinction. Just because you don't like what they stand for we must use this kind of terminology correctly to differentiate between different parties. A truly fascist party would be very different and a lot more terrifying.

OP posts:
Julen7 · 11/02/2026 09:28

Haemagoblin · 11/02/2026 09:25

I struggle to see how Reform could possibly 'lurch to the right' post election. They are absolutely upfront and clear about the fact they are fascists. If people vote for them, that's what they're voting for. Unless they are just too painfully dumb to see that, and you can't account for people being gormless when they vote.

Show quote history

At least they are transparent. People hate governments who lie and deceive.

Pinkearedcows · 11/02/2026 09:27

Bargepole45 · 11/02/2026 09:16

I think they risk seriously damaging democracy. Have we ever had a party shift so strongly from a political position before unless there is a major crisis? Being cynical, what is to stop Reform shifting to a completely fascist position if they're voted in on a relatively moderate right wing manifesto? Why would this be worse than Labour shifting to the left? What about someone using democracy and it's tools to become a dictator? Where do we draw the line? At what point do people admit that the government's policies have changed so much since election that they no longer gave a democratic mandate?

Show quote history

Any shift to the left is going to be slight. Starmer is not going to gallop towards communism. He is a centrist.

Just because something was not in it manifesto, that doesn't mean a government can't do it. Government policy responds to changing times, it is nothing new. If we needed a GE everytime a new, non-manifesto policy was introduced we'd have endless GEs.

Original poster
Bargepole45 · 11/02/2026 09:25

MostlyGhostly · 11/02/2026 09:23

Another one here who would happily pay more tax ( I’m currently taxed at the higher rate) if it meant more was spent on education, health and social housing. “Tax and spend” isn’t to everyone the terrifying harbinger of doom that you think it is

What if more money was spent on pensions, adult social care, SEN education and benefits? This will be where more taxes are spent before we get round to social housing or health.

OP posts:
Haemagoblin · 11/02/2026 09:25

Bargepole45 · 10/02/2026 14:32

But we know from recent history i.e. Jeremy Corbyn that the British public don't want a left wing government. They had their opportunity and they overwhelmingly voted against it. Manifestos can't reasonably be binding but it is blatantly undemocratic to come into power making some clear assurances to the general public that would place your party more in the centre of the political spectrum and to then lurch to the left. As I said upthread, what would happen if Reform got in and then lurched to the right. Would you really be ok with that and all it would entail? Would you simply repeat that manifestos aren't binding?

Show quote history

I struggle to see how Reform could possibly 'lurch to the right' post election. They are absolutely upfront and clear about the fact they are fascists. If people vote for them, that's what they're voting for. Unless they are just too painfully dumb to see that, and you can't account for people being gormless when they vote.

MostlyGhostly · 11/02/2026 09:23

Another one here who would happily pay more tax ( I’m currently taxed at the higher rate) if it meant more was spent on education, health and social housing. “Tax and spend” isn’t to everyone the terrifying harbinger of doom that you think it is

Original poster
Bargepole45 · 11/02/2026 09:20

InLoveWithAI · 11/02/2026 09:18

I don't want labour to lurch to the left.

I want them to stampede over there. Where they began and where the majority of their voters sit.

If they hold another election and do this then I don't think anyone would have a problem if you're right and the voters want this then they will have a full term in office with a clear mandate. So do you support this?

OP posts:
BIossomtoes · 11/02/2026 09:19

Bikergran · 11/02/2026 08:25

I want Labour to reposition itself as left rather than centerist, I want them to have true socialist values, rather than sucking up to rich donors and taking freebies. I want Labour to be clearly distinguishable from the Tories.

Absolutely.

InLoveWithAI · 11/02/2026 09:18

I don't want labour to lurch to the left.

I want them to stampede over there. Where they began and where the majority of their voters sit.

hagchic · 11/02/2026 09:18

Bring on the IMF. No political group of any sort is going to do what needs to be done - it's too unpopular.

It will have to be forced externally.

Original poster
Bargepole45 · 11/02/2026 09:16

Pinkearedcows · 11/02/2026 09:08

Labour has nothing to lose in terms of the electorate rn. May as well go for it iyswim. It might actually work, who knows.

Show quote history

I think they risk seriously damaging democracy. Have we ever had a party shift so strongly from a political position before unless there is a major crisis? Being cynical, what is to stop Reform shifting to a completely fascist position if they're voted in on a relatively moderate right wing manifesto? Why would this be worse than Labour shifting to the left? What about someone using democracy and it's tools to become a dictator? Where do we draw the line? At what point do people admit that the government's policies have changed so much since election that they no longer gave a democratic mandate?

OP posts:
EasternStandard · 11/02/2026 09:15

Pinkearedcows · 11/02/2026 09:08

Labour has nothing to lose in terms of the electorate rn. May as well go for it iyswim. It might actually work, who knows.

Show quote history

I think they do have something to lose but listening to a backbencher this morning it’s sounding more inevitable.

Pinkearedcows · 11/02/2026 09:08

EasternStandard · 11/02/2026 08:21

Well they can convince each other they need to take big risks and do it without mandate but the electorate and the markets might show what they think of that.

Show quote history

Labour has nothing to lose in terms of the electorate rn. May as well go for it iyswim. It might actually work, who knows.

JHound · 11/02/2026 09:07

I would expect Labour supporters to be more left wing. A lurch to the left makes more sense than one to the right.

Mishmosher · 11/02/2026 09:06

Bikergran · 11/02/2026 08:25

I want Labour to reposition itself as left rather than centerist, I want them to have true socialist values, rather than sucking up to rich donors and taking freebies. I want Labour to be clearly distinguishable from the Tories.

You can want that, but that wasn’t what they said they were going to do when they were elected into government and many - me included - wouldn’t have voted for them if they had. It’s a totally different type of politics. Do you think it’s fair that they dramatically change their political stance without calling a general election and trying to win a mandate for it?

Pinkearedcows · 11/02/2026 09:04

DiySteve · 11/02/2026 08:15

A balloon with a face drawn on it could have won the 2024 GE versus the Tories.

Labour got in on bare-faced lies (Sunak called out Starmer multiple times), and the anyone but Tories vote.

Labour will be consigned to the wilderness for a multiple of 14 years after this abomination of a government.

Many of us are sick and tired of being taxed to the nth degree, to being lied to, to being gas-lit, to having any vestige of aspiration beaten out of us, to having to fund seemingly endless economic refugees, and to supporting the undeserving welfare crowd.

There will be consequences.

Show quote history

Consequences? That sounds ominous. Do you mean we might end up with Farage at the helm?

Original poster
Bargepole45 · 11/02/2026 09:04

Bikergran · 11/02/2026 08:25

I want Labour to reposition itself as left rather than centerist, I want them to have true socialist values, rather than sucking up to rich donors and taking freebies. I want Labour to be clearly distinguishable from the Tories.

Do you think they can do that when they have been elected as a centrist party? Do you think a re-election would be needed to give them a new mandate?

OP posts:
Bikergran · 11/02/2026 08:25

I want Labour to reposition itself as left rather than centerist, I want them to have true socialist values, rather than sucking up to rich donors and taking freebies. I want Labour to be clearly distinguishable from the Tories.

EasternStandard · 11/02/2026 08:21

HRTQueen · 10/02/2026 21:03

One loophole is signing property over this has been done for generations as a way to keep wealth in the family

landlords earnings are taxed lower than wages, renting a property (or two) is not running a business (it’s not difficult) it’s extra money coming in so why isn’t it taxed in the same way

business especially large businesses have been able to lobby governments and persuade them with threats it’s time to stand up to this, they have kept wages low

what we have now is not working it hasn’t worked for some time and since 2008 all we have seen is the divide getting bigger. I’m disappointed to have a Labour government that are not willing to take risks and again pandering to large businesses and those who threaten to take money out of the country

Well they can convince each other they need to take big risks and do it without mandate but the electorate and the markets might show what they think of that.

DiySteve · 11/02/2026 08:15

Bargepole45 · 11/02/2026 08:02

They don't have the political mandate to take big risks. Nobody votes for these big risks. If they've known since 2008 another way was needed then why not campaign on this basis? Why couldn't they make the argument and convince people? We are meant to live in a democracy where the majority rules. Not where you lie to get into power and then completely change your agenda once you're in so that you can make radical changes nobody actually voted for. I am flabbergasted you think this is ok!

Show quote history

A balloon with a face drawn on it could have won the 2024 GE versus the Tories.

Labour got in on bare-faced lies (Sunak called out Starmer multiple times), and the anyone but Tories vote.

Labour will be consigned to the wilderness for a multiple of 14 years after this abomination of a government.

Many of us are sick and tired of being taxed to the nth degree, to being lied to, to being gas-lit, to having any vestige of aspiration beaten out of us, to having to fund seemingly endless economic refugees, and to supporting the undeserving welfare crowd.

There will be consequences.

Original poster
Bargepole45 · 11/02/2026 08:02

HRTQueen · 10/02/2026 21:03

One loophole is signing property over this has been done for generations as a way to keep wealth in the family

landlords earnings are taxed lower than wages, renting a property (or two) is not running a business (it’s not difficult) it’s extra money coming in so why isn’t it taxed in the same way

business especially large businesses have been able to lobby governments and persuade them with threats it’s time to stand up to this, they have kept wages low

what we have now is not working it hasn’t worked for some time and since 2008 all we have seen is the divide getting bigger. I’m disappointed to have a Labour government that are not willing to take risks and again pandering to large businesses and those who threaten to take money out of the country

They don't have the political mandate to take big risks. Nobody votes for these big risks. If they've known since 2008 another way was needed then why not campaign on this basis? Why couldn't they make the argument and convince people? We are meant to live in a democracy where the majority rules. Not where you lie to get into power and then completely change your agenda once you're in so that you can make radical changes nobody actually voted for. I am flabbergasted you think this is ok!

OP posts:
Original poster
Bargepole45 · 11/02/2026 07:59

SevenYellowHammers · 10/02/2026 21:26

Paid full tax for 43 years. Love paying tax because it’s the mark of a civilised society. Healthcare and education free at point of entry is fantastic. Albeit that health and education has been much undermined by trusts and academization. Along with Brexit, mass privatisation and selling off of public assets has been the biggest disaster. I can’t understand why so many people think business is so good. Pay people well so they can pay their taxes and buy products (also taxed) to boost the economy. That’s not lunching to the left, that’s making money to spend money.

Show quote history

This would make perfect sense if we didn't all buy imported goods and go on holidays abroad so the money stayed on our economy. It also would make perfect sense if inflation wasn't a thing and our businesses didn't need to compete globally to export goods. Look at Sweden and how high wages can drive unemployment unless you have very specific conditions. High wages aren't the golden bullet in a global economy.

OP posts: