Forum menu
What were the questions from press and media in the Q&A afterwards…? Immigration, immigration, immigration…
Didn't watch the speech but glad reducing immigration isn't one of the targets. I think labour are coming round to the view that you can't diffuse an issue like immigration by ceding ground to the right wing on it. Far better to make the positive case and accept the reality that it's required than pretend it can be eradicated. Hopefully they'll start to do the same on some other issues too like taxing the rich and greater state control of utilities and services.
What were the first questions from press and media in the Q&A afterwards…? Immigration, immigration, immigration…
The media appear to just slavishly follow whatever the man-frog has to say and have allowed the Reform mob to set the agenda. They are just absolutely obsessed with immigration and ‘small boats’. I don’t think it’s anywhere near representative of the concerns of most voters.
Thought the speech was ok. I was also immediately struck by the emphasis on immigration from the journalists. I did tut (under my breath) but have actually decided to lodge a complaint with the BBC, as the first question was from a BBC journalist.
Didn’t watch the speech but glad reducing immigration isn’t one of the targets.
A week ago Starmer pledged to reduce immigration:
UK's Starmer pledges to reduce immigration with points-based reform
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-net-migration-falls-year-june-2024-11-28/
Yup, reducing immigration still on the cards (and with recent record high levels should be pretty simple to achieve) but why the need for BBC, Sky, etc to put it front and centre all the time, as if nothing else (including areas touched on in this speech) matters…? [ rhetorical question really ]
I don't think Starmer's speeches are in anyway connected to physical reality half the time. They often sound like an agency session to rebrand a poor product.
Just another reset of vague ideas that will probably disappear from the agenda. We have to see the real world consequences of these ideas take shape - and for that it won't be done with private investment. Until they stop with this utter rubbish then don't expect things to be better. You've kind of got to be comfortable with the idea that fixing things is going to take a load of government money not private funds - which is inefficient and benefits mostly the lender.
I did detect a slight shift in his tone though that maybe this cringy conservative speak he came to power with - might be fizzling a bit.
Brass tacks works. But deliver.
Immigration has been made a talking point by all parties and the media.
I'd simply just concentrate on fixing mainstream issues a la material conditions then people will eventually (not all of them) realise that most the UK's problems aren't actually related to too much immigration but under investment and poor political will.
Push the fix button and change the narrative is the direction of travel.
To respond:
I think lots of people on STW don’t realise the reality of most peoples lives outside their bubble, they seem to really believe in meritocracy already existing rather than it being an ideal to strive for.
This "bubble" you refer to, I'm looking across my entire extended family and everyone I know well in it either has lived (relatively) well as a pensioner or those of my generation are either early retired or will in the next couple of years - and while all will get the full State Pension (as all have worked enough 'years'), we've also all put aside (either with work schemes or privately).
Now, I've 100% sympathy for those who couldn't work but the rest of you that haven't put aside, what did you think was going to happen when you couldn't earn any more?
what did you think was going to happen when you couldn’t earn any more?
An easy question to ask when your rent + bills is alway less than your income. Now, what do you think would happen to people where that is not the case, if they didn’t pay their rent and bills?
An easy question to ask when your rent + bills is alway less than your income. Now, what do you think would happen to people where that is not the case, if they didn’t pay their rent and bills?
It's like I've never been in that position...
Stay in a cheaper place, buy cheaper stuff etc etc.
what did you think was going to happen when you couldn’t earn any more?
Die?
Stay in a cheaper place, buy cheaper stuff etc etc.
Christ you think people haven't already tried that? If you're trying not to sound out of touch with reality you're not doing a very good job. Enjoy your pension, I'm sure you worked very hard for it. ?
nah, I can't be arsed responding to that bollocks.
When people are constantly told that immigration is a massive problem a lot of them believe it
Yup, hopefully if today marks a turning point and Starmer continues to refuse to have the agenda dictated to him by Tory and Reform UK politicians, and a media which so willingly obliges, people might stop believing that they need to consider immigration (and small boat arrivals in particular) as a huge issue which needs to be tackled with such urgency.
I see that Sky News in this piece claims "the prime minister dodged questions about why migration was not one of the six milestones" and yet Sky News in their own clip show that he didn't dodge the question at all.
He clearly answers the question and it is obvious that it is because he doesn't see immigration as a higher priority to the other six issues.
A week ago Starmer pledged to reduce immigration:
I don’t think Starmer has any intention of reducing immigration because he knows social care and the NHS would collapse without it. That’s why he’s not including it in his targets like Sunak did.
social care and the NHS would collapse without it.
If you click on my link above you will see this :
"Where we find clear evidence of sectors that are over- reliant on immigration, we will reform the Points Based System and make sure that applications for the relevant visa routes, whether it's the skilled worker route or the shortage occupation list, will now come with new expectations on training people here in our country."
Which sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Although I think that the whole Points Based System is absurd, and typically Tory. The whole point of wealthy countries encouraging immigration to them is so that migrants can do the sort of jobs which nationals of those countries would rather not do. Not to give them the best most highly paid jobs, as the Tories obviously believe, ffs
Postwar mass immigration into the UK, and also in much of Europe, was characterised by unskilled or semi-skilled employment opportunities, something which the UK and Europe should be extremely grateful for, especially during the reconstruction period. Mass immigration certainly wasn't fueled by the need for highly skilled or professional people, that would have been absurd.
Ironically we need to give opportunities to the descendants of immigrants to access well paid professional jobs before poaching skilled professionals from overseas, imo.
Regardless, Starmer is sitting on a piping lava hot PM throne
Immigration, NHS etc are all side shows with minimum impact on people .
Get the energy cost down and he will rule for another term. i.e. more disposable income for people
Which sounds perfectly reasonable to me
I don't disagree. But he needs to figure out how to raise wages and cut the costs of training to the point where people here will want to work in those sectors. There aren't many young working class people willing to do those jobs for minimum wage whilst at the same time having to fork out thousands for training and student loans etc. Far easier and cheaper to bring in foreign workers trained elsewhere. Reducing immigration by training people who live here is going to cost a shitload of money that Rachel Reeves will no doubt say we can't afford.
He also has to go easy on net migration as a few of his milestones rely on it. Where are all the builders, where are all the additional NHS staff, come to think of it where are all the extra policeman. Guessing that people in UK who want to be builders, work in NHS or join the police are already doing that.
Of course what he could have done is explain that we need the migrants to do the jobs to achieve his milestones. They will be taxed, services will be increased to minimise the impact the additional people of housing, schools, NHS etc,
Well Starmer has answered that question ;
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-net-migration-falls-year-june-2024-11-28/Although Daz suggests that it will be unaffordable, or at least Rachel Reeves will claim that it is, and bringing in skilled professionals whose training has been met by foreign governments will continue to be the preferred choice.
The Guardian headlines with the economy unexpectedly shrinking by -0.1% in October. According to ONS.
Well it's not really unexpected.
Because Labour have it back to front. On the back of years of Tory ruin - instead of coming into the situation with a big investment plan to hit the ground running Labour decided to actually help shrink the economy with the removal of money via taxation (which has yet to bite btw.)
Labour have spent time with BlackRock and Reeves with Jamie Dimon looking for advice on how to run an economy.
Their plan? To wait for growth to appear.
Now there maybe a bump or two up and down with some spending, but medium-long term things are grim as hell when it comes to growth.
It really was simple maths in reality - take that big bank of theirs and use it to invest in society, fix the stuff that is desperate - and the growth will absolutely follow. Because government spending has to come before growth and taxation follows that. But what did they do? These fiscal idiots ignored the 2 child cap, took forward money out of pensioners pockets and tested some fancy clothes out. (And yes yes it may affect some well off pensioners but that's a distraction - as it was an unnecessary part of the fiscal landscape, sent out all the wrong signals and still removes money from the economy. )
If their ever was a plan for government - that really shouldn't have been it
Next year I'm guessing the the stock market will continue to do well, as will crypto. Because the BoE are handing out money via interest income to people with plenty of money. (I do think the rug will pull on that somewhere in 2025, especially with the Trump tariffs in play but that's another story. There is a big bubble incoming at some point. )
How can this be fair?
Money for interest comes from the exact same account the government spends from - the consolidated fund at the BoE. But apparently there's a big black hole which means we can't spend anything, despite masses of interest income leaking from the BoE.
We are living in the upside down where Labour are doing a whole load of nothing to economically to fix huge problems that they could fix or begin to.
Meanwhile Reform are calling for water nationalisation of Thames.
But the grown-ups are back in charge and James O'Brien and Ian Dunt (king of bad calls) are bed wetting over PMQ performances.
This feels like the biggest waste of political and economic opportunity I've ever witnessed.
This feels like the biggest waste of political and economic opportunity I’ve ever witnessed.
Except your plan would be declared "Communist" by 90% of the UK media...
Because Labour have it back to front. On the back of years of Tory ruin – instead of coming into the situation with a big investment plan to hit the ground running Labour decided to actually help shrink the economy with the removal of money via taxation (which has yet to bite btw.)
The additional taxation was only announced at the end of the month where the economy actually shrunk, so it's got FA to do with the 0.1% shrinking - that was already going to happen.
Except your plan would be declared “Communist” by 90% of the UK media…
I thought the government's entire economic policies were based on the much vaunted determination to make "unpopular decisions"?
Who cares if 90% of the UK media accuses Starmer of being a communist.....he has a huge landslide majority and the next general election is more than 4 years away.
Or are we now saying that it is only important to make unpopular right-wing decisions but definitely not unpopular left-wing decisions?
Do we need to ask the Daily Mail which unpopular decisions they approve of?
The additional taxation was only announced at the end of the month where the economy actually shrunk, so it’s got FA to do with the 0.1% shrinking – that was already going to happen.
I think that's Rone's point; Rachel Reeves bet that economic growth would outperform the OBR's forecast over the next few years and tailored the budget to that
The problem is that growth isn't happening and you can read OBR projections on future effects of continued instability in the Middle East, for example, https://obr.uk/box/economic-implications-of-further-instability-in-the-middle-east/
The Middle East hasn't shown any signs of stability for twelve months now and I don't know why she'd imagine that growth was likely
I think that’s Rone’s point; Rachel Reeves bet that economic growth would outperform the OBR’s forecast over the next few years and tailored the budget to that
And you missed my point, the 0.1% reductions are for September & October - this was BEFORE the budget announcement, and certainly before any implementation of the budget.
the 0.1% reductions are for September & October – this was BEFORE the budget announcement
Well yes, exactly. When you keep banging on about how bad things are and how tough the budget will be, BEFORE the budget announcement, small wonder that business and consumer confidence takes a hammering and people don't want to neither invest nor spend.
"Critics blame the government, accusing Sir Keir Starmer and his chancellor Rachel Reeves of a spectacular, early, own goal that spooked the public and businesses alike."
"After three weeks in office, both warned of a "tough" budget to come on 30 October due to an inherited "£22bn black hole" in the public finances that a snap Treasury review had uncovered."
https://news.sky.com/story/economy-in-shock-decline-during-october-13272524
And you missed my point, the 0.1% reductions are for September & October – this was BEFORE the budget announcement, and certainly before any implementation of the budget.
The OBR projection example (linked^^) was from March, BEFORE the election. Rachel Reeves has ignored world events and their effect on UK economic growth, which is connected to world events more than many other big economies.
She then ignored world events for another six months and bet on UK growth being better than forecast; "the 0.1% reductions (are) for September & October" aren't a shock, they were inevitable and the slide in growth will continue because of her budget
Coincidentally, we've seen talk of economic "black holes" before https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63573989 All that they do is lead politicians into poor choices, like austerity and tax rises
Keir Starmer is 'the worst Prime Minister in modern history,' according to Brits
Sir Keir Starmer is the worst Prime Minister in modern history, according to voters. A huge six in 10 say they are “dissatisfied” with his record, including more than a third of Labour supporters, after five months in the job.
That's really quite something when you consider that Rishi Sunak, Boris Johnson, and Teresa May, are all also on the list.
Worth noting that question wasn’t “is Kier Starmer the worst Prime Minister in modern history”, or “who is the worst Prime Minister in modern history”… it was a standard question on “satisfaction”. Clickbait nonsense headline for a piece generated by scraping stories from other media outlets.
If "Sir Keir Starmer" was replaced with "Rishi Sunak" or "Boris Johnson" I have very little doubt that the validity of the claim would not be doubted, or that there would be any talk of "clickbait nonsense headline". Funny that.
There is overwhelming evidence that Keir Starmer is deeply unpopular with voters, including a substantial amount of Labour voters, poll after poll makes that clear.
This is translated into support for the Labour Party which all the polls of the last couple of months show is hovering at about 26%, I can't remember the last time Labour enjoyed so little support among voters.
But some people want to blissfully delude themselves as much as the Tories did during the time of the last government.
So it's not true Kelvin, Starmer is much more popular than all the polls suggest? 🙂
There is another poll that's just come out which claims that Labour voters think that Starmer is a worse PM than Thatcher, and they didn't rate Thatcher very high!
This is what Starmer is up against.
Much as I want to be positive I don't think he stands a chance. Its not about intellect, its not about a positive vision or milestones or metro mayors or anything that might actually bear fruit in X number of years time. Its about billions of dollars and a concerted desire to rule the world and shape it in an image of some awful gigantic bastardised version of a gated community - basically they have watched the film Elysium and thought yeah we can do that but on Earth. The billionaires are playing with useful idiots like Farage who have political traction and for the likes of Candy they are offering a seat at the big boys table - you've proved your entry level qualifications by scamming that first billion......now show us how loyal you really are.
In a world like this how will the old school politics of the decent ever shine through?
Worth noting that question wasn’t “is Kier Starmer the worst Prime Minister in modern history”, or “who is the worst Prime Minister in modern history”
No competent polling organisation would ask such a question as they would produce statistically useless results. On the other hand measuring net satisfaction where you have a time series of results using the similar methodology to compare the results to is a perfectly sound evaluation technique.
Only if you equate popularity with best and vice versa
perfectly sound evaluation technique
Of course it is. A perfectly sound poll. The “headline” of that bit of cut and paste “journalism” doesn’t match it though, does it.
This is what Starmer is up against.
If only he had a sweeping majority, so he could pass legislation to prevent oligarchs interfering in the democratic process.
If only he had a sweeping majority, so he could pass legislation to prevent oligarchs interfering in the democratic process.
He's too busy trying to piss off every other group of people in the country to bother with pissing off the billionaires as well. The WASPI women are just the latest to fall victim to Reeves' ideological purity about keeping the city and bond traders happy. Who needs Farage in power when they have Starmer and Reeves doing all their dirty work for them?
And meanwhile inflation is up again while growth continues to go down. Stagflation is here to stay by the looks of it. I said on the other thread that Reeves would be gone by the time of the next budget. I think that's optimistic, keep this up and she'll be gone by the spring/summer. Starmer may not be far behind her if the polls continue to tank.
he WASPI women are just the latest to fall victim to Reeves’ ideological purity about keeping the city and bond traders happy.
You'd prefer to spend £10bn to cover the <10% who weren't paying attention?
#MagicMoneyTree
I think that’s optimistic, keep this up and she’ll be gone by the spring/summer. Starmer may not be far behind her if the polls continue to tank.
Could have been a plan all along. Get the 'grown ups' to get Labour into power, see how useless the 'grown ups' actually are and replace them with people who are a bit more progressive.
The WASPI women are just the latest to fall victim to Reeves’ ideological purity
Oh behave, even the ombudsman concluded that no-one has lost any money. The compensation was for the fact that a lack of information may have meant that some women might have made different decisions. I don't think its justifiable to give people money on that basis.
I don’t think its justifiable to give people money on that basis.
Maybe not. But Starmer hasn't refused to give them compensation because he disagrees with their cause*, but because the country 'can't afford it'. it's total bullshit and once again peddling the false narrative of austerity.
*Given the number of times he and other labour MPs have been photographed with WASPI campaigners it very much look like he does agree with their cause.
but because the country ‘can’t afford it’
Which he clearly believes because if he didn't what would have been easier than paying out compensation to the WASPI women and balming the Tories.
Kemi Badanochs attack on him at PMQ’s was just bizarre
Basically ‘it’s a terrible decision but it’s exactly what we’d have done’
Doesnt the whole thing just amount to the usual though? Boomers moaning that the moon on a stick they’ve been given isn’t the one they wanted?
Which he clearly believes
Without doubt. His ideological commitment to what is affordable is as strong as any Tory's.
The Tories too made "difficult decisions" based on what they claimed the country could afford.
Starmer and his cabinet see the economic issues exactly as the Tories did. They just claim to be more prudent than the Tories.
but because the country ‘can’t afford it’. it’s total bullshit and once again peddling the false narrative of austerity.
They haven't said they can't afford it, they said they'd rather spend money on other things. And in the grand scheme of things, I think they're right. I don't think we should be handing money to Boomers, who's argument boils down to "Becasue we just assumed we'd be OK, we weren't paying attention to the changes the govt at the time made" Meantime the rest of us won't ever be handed everything on a plate, and these folks still think they should get the hand-outs.
Boomers, being entitled, who'd have thought it?
*pedant alert”
Sure enough, but here's the thing, if Starmer said to the WASPI campaign, we could give this money to you, or we could invest it in your grandkids. I wonder what the response would be.
They haven’t said they can’t afford it
Direct quote from Starmer at PMQs:
"I just set out the factual background and the percentage that knew about the change, and the simple fact of the matter is, in the current economic circumstances, the taxpayer can’t bear the burden of tens of billions of pounds in compensation."
I think that's pretty obviously clear to everyone who reads or hears it. It's also pretty obvious to everyone that Starmer and the Labour govt are not people of their word. At a time when the govt has come under huge pressure about not sticking to it's manifesto pledges this seems like another own goal, all done at the altar of tory austerity.
although the money could be found to pay them, it shouldn’t be used for this.
It doesn't say that at all and no one hearing that will take that interpretation. "We can't afford it" means exactly that. If he meant there were higher priorities for govt spending then he should have said that, but he didn't. All people will hear is "we have no money", and their takeaway will be that there is no point in Starmer and his govt, because that's what he was elected to fix. They'd be right too.
all done at the altar of tory austerity
So, the alternative to Austerity is Investment.
You can use the money to invest in long term infrastructure or programmes that aim to promote growth. Or you could give money to the teeny group of women wealthy enough to think that had they been actually paying attention they'd have maybe invested differently in the gap between stopping work and claiming a pension, an that money will disappear into that demographic's asset portfolio.
I know which one I'd rather the govt did, and it isn't giving money to make this demographic a little bit more wealthy still
EDIT: In many ways Starmer's right, we can't afford to continue to give money to this generation supported by the rest us, they're aren't enough of the 'rest of us' anymore. We need to stop handing the boomers everything on a plate and start giving the kids a bit of a leg up instead.
I know which one I’d rather the govt did, and it isn’t giving money to make this demographic a little bit more wealthy still
Don't particlularly disagree. Boomer pensioners are somewhere near the bottom of the list of priorities if you ask me. I just can't quite believe the pigs ear they've made of the comms.
Kemi Badanochs attack on him at PMQ’s was just bizarre
Basically ‘it’s a terrible decision but it’s exactly what we’d have done’
Surely that is exactly what Starmer did when he was leader of the opposition.....he constantly attacked the government but then claimed that unfortunately Labour would have to do the same.
The latest development.....
Up to 100 Labour MPs could vote against Waspi payout refusal
So to sum up, instead of the promised growth the UK economy is now shrinking, inflation is now at its highest level since the start of the year, voters don't like Starmer, and now up to a hundred Labour MPs might rebel against the government.
It's not been a good first six months for Starmer. It turns out that that being prime minister might not be quite as easy as it first appears. And to bugger things up Starmer can't use the excuse of not having a huge working majority.
Starmer's meteoric political rise in a relatively short time has relied heavily on extraordinarily good luck, accumulating in a huge majority from a remarkably small share of the vote. However it would appear that his luck might have finally run out. Although it's obviously not him who will pay the price - I am sure that post politics Starmer's career will be as lucrative as Nick Clegg's.
So to sum up, instead of the promised growth the UK economy is now shrinking, inflation is now at its highest level since the start of the year, voters don’t like Starmer,
Only Starmer and Co didn't seem to notice they were sowing the seeds of their own failure.
I think the economy stuff was clearly going to happen. They simply don't understand what they're doing. And are moving in the opposite direction of growth. I.e to remove money through taxation = less money in the economy.
That's yet to hit.
It was always obvious inflation would tick up again - I pointed this out a while back. That said the drive for 2% inflation (cpi) is nonsense and allowing the BoE to keep paying a basic income to people with wealth - whilst proving the point they must crush demand at the lower end. They absolutely want to vindicate their position.
The bit that Labour are in an absolute mess over are their fiscal plans. They've done nothing to prepare us for winter.
(On top of that whilst I don't have a huge axe to grind over the Waspi thing - seeing pictures of the cabinet from a while back supporting them now looks ridiculous and disingenuous. The fact they can't afford it though is as usual total fiction. They just don't want to be seen paying this out.)
All that said let's remember it's not necessarily always about who they give money to - but spending money is a contribution to the economy at every level. They want growth so they have to add more money then they tax away - it's as simple as that.
It really is the government's job to create economic conditions the fix the foundations. It is within their control and currently the BoE is definitely not on the same page.
If you want a lesson in anti-MMT self defeating rhetoric - you absolutely must keep an eye on Trump and Musk, they are going to move in the opposite direction. They are back to old fashioned American thinking that they need to shrink the state. Musk hasn't a clue above government money - he thinks the tax payer is the source of money. Just think that through for one minute - the tax payer creates money to give to the government. Even though the Fed have their name attached to every dollar. Middle America is lapping it up this insane logic.
(I've got to say on a personal level my business has just about ground to a halt with demand. No one is spending in my line of work currently - not totally unusual but it's worse than I can remember.)
Don’t particlularly disagree. Boomer pensioners are somewhere near the bottom of the list of priorities if you ask me. I just can’t quite believe the pigs ear they’ve made of the comms.
I'm not sure there would have been a good way to manage the comms on this. Well, unless you went back three years and told every MP to not stand quite so close to WASPIs in photos.
To be fair, they never said they were going to pay compensation. Also, I don't think they should be paying compensation.
This is more a result of the same phenomena we saw on here often enough during the election where Labour never actually said they were going to do anything but lots of people thought they were getting secret signals from Starmer that he was going to do the right thing once in power.
Unfortunately lots of people thought they were getting secret signals and are now realising secret signals aren't the same as a manifesto commitment.
Also, if we are going to start compensating people for poor decision making due to not paying attention, I have a few personal suggestions on things I'd like the government to compensate me for...
Unfortunately lots of people thought they were getting secret signals and are now realising secret signals aren’t the same as a manifesto commitment.
It think it's more basic than that - Starmer doesn't do much of anything he pledges ahead of time.
Manifesto or not.
No ****er believes him.
Whereas Rachel Reeves definitely makes no secret of her intentions. Wrong but on point.
It's all just a huge wasted opportunity with decidedly deserving economic fallout from awful decisions.
Surely that is exactly what Starmer did when he was leader of the opposition…..he constantly attacked the government but then claimed that unfortunately Labour would have to do the same.
Not really, but never in the same actual sentence. Badanoch really is the greatest gift that Starmer could have asked for as leader of the opposition. She’s hopeless, but too smug and arrogant to even countenance the fact that she’s hopeless.
John Crace summed up her performance at PMQ’s pretty well in the Guardian. I’m sure he’ll be hoping he’ll be facing her at the despatch box for the next 5 years but I can’t see it. Not that who they replace her with will necessarily be any better
Waspi women hand KemiKaze a gift, which she fails to unwrap
So to sum up, instead of the promised growth the UK economy is now shrinking, inflation is now at its highest level since the start of the year, voters don’t like Starmer, and now up to a hundred Labour MPs might rebel against the government.
Read the article properly, there's no vote - they don't need one.
Maybe because of what I do for a living (Auditor), and my 40 years of working experience of doing it that I 100% realise that it'll take years to just get a list of the stuff that needs fixing in the UK, never mind fixing it - and along the way stuff you'd prefer to fix properly in better times, just needs to be recorded and added to the 'fixing list' (in some kind of priority order).
I've also experienced renovating old buildings, and know, for example, that just painting over a damp patch is a recipe for future problems when the correct approach is to add it to the list and then investigate properly what's causing it and how to (permanently) fix it.
The WASPI women campaign while it might have had 'legs' back in 2011 when Cameron quicken the pace of change is not something that Labour need to deal with, ever.
Their key complaint seems to be that they weren't personally told of the changes. I for one don't remember a letter personally addressed to me tell me that my State Pension will now not come until 67 rather than 65, anyone else?
Read the article properly, there’s no vote – they don’t need one.
I obviously did read the link which I posted, but perhaps you didn't read it fully before commenting?
"However, it is understood that the Liberal Democrats intend to press the government to hold a vote. Should that be denied, the party could then consider other means, such as as a backbench debate or opposition day.'"
That's quite a lot of words for an experienced auditor to miss!
The issue of course isn't whether there will be a vote or not, or even whether the government would lose it. The point of the comment is to highlight that after 6 months as PM Starmer is in quite a pickle.
Inflation is increasing, the economy is drifting towards recession, he personally is unpopular as is very much the Labour Party as a whole, and now to add to his woes there is talk of up to one hundred Labour MPs rebelling.
But perhaps you think everything is on track........"Crises? What crisis?"
I for one don’t remember a letter personally addressed to me tell me that my State Pension will now not come until 67 rather than 65, anyone else?
I've been referring people to this for the last decade:
I'm in one of the groups that will have to wait at least an extra year over friends from the same school year, by virtue of being born after April (should I be fortunate enough to reach retirement age). It's not unfair, just a case of being on the 'wrong' side of the line, is all.
Or, considering Labour's huge majority, five years of discontent?
And ultimately perhaps an extremely contented Nigel Farage?
I’m in one of the groups that will have to wait at least an extra year over friends from the same school year, by virtue of being born after April (should I be fortunate enough to reach retirement age). It’s not unfair, just a case of being on the ‘wrong’ side of the line, is all.
Agree, I wasn't complaining, just pointing out that the WASPI women's key 'complaint' is that they want to be compensated for "not paying attention".
<em style="box-sizing: border-box; --tw-border-spacing-x: 0; --tw-border-spacing-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246/0.5); --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; color: #000000; font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; background-color: #eeeeee;">“However, it is understood that the Liberal Democrats intend to press the government to hold a vote. Should that be denied, the party could then consider other means, such as as a backbench debate or opposition day.'”
"Could" doing a lot of work there - are you seriously suggesting that the Govt pony up £10bn just so they don't have the possibility of a non-event?
are you seriously suggesting that the Govt pony up £10bn just so they don’t have the possibility of a non-event?
I am seriously suggesting the Starmer has some serious problems, I thought that was self-evident.
The issue of course isn’t whether there will be a vote or not, or even whether the government would lose it. The point of the comment is to highlight that after 6 months as PM Starmer is in quite a pickle.
You obviously disagree.
I for one don’t remember a letter personally addressed to me tell me that my State Pension will now not come until 67 rather than 65, anyone else?
No but a check online on the government website tells me it'll be at 66 and 3 months. I don't remember being personally informed of any change in the law, it's up to me to find out. I have had one letter from the UK government in 35 years and it took multiple phone calls, letters and form filling to get that. They know where I live.
I had a quick check on what Labour/ Starmer are doing to fulfill some of the key electoral promises. Housing starts are below half what is needed and don't look promising as planning permission isn't being granted for enough. The budgets being allocated suggest promises on health, transport and energy are fiction. Teacher pay isn't going to attract 6500 new teachers and more current ones are leaving.
"Change" he said. Same old
Meanwhile relations with Europe are shit and not improving, the economy is slowing and everything Starmer does looks suspiciously like austerity to me.
Sun's out, think I'll go ride a gee gee.
Agree, I wasn’t complaining, just pointing out that the WASPI women’s key ‘complaint’ is that they want to be compensated for “not paying attention”.
Don't think anyone has any really disagreed with that point.
But maybe Labour politicians shouldn't have been quite so keen to get their pictures taken with WASPI women if they never had any intention of paying compensation.
Keeping any politician away from a photo op - let's be honest, most would be happy to be photo'd at the opening of a yoghurt pot, is probably too much to ask - even of Labour, traditionally held to a higher standard by their parsimonious critics, after the event.
Inflation is increasing, the economy is drifting towards recession, he personally is unpopular as is very much the Labour Party as a whole, and now to add to his woes there is talk of up to one hundred Labour MPs rebelling.
What did for the tories was rising prices of everyday goods, higher mortgage costs through high interest rates, and stagnant wages. Labour came to power promising that magical economic growth would solve those problems. It wouldn't of course, but they look like they're not going to deliver that either, so now they're going to be stuck with all three major economic indicators either going in the wrong direction or not improving. The result will be people feeling much poorer in their pockets. Add that to the perception of broken promises and a belief that Starmer can't be trusted to keep his word then he's going to be in big trouble some time next year if nothing improves.
Keeping any politician away from a photo op – let’s be honest, most would be happy to be photo’d at the opening of a yoghurt pot
I have to say Nick you are doing a sterling job of reminding everyone that Labour politicians are no different.
I wonder if voters will pick up on that by 2029?
I suspect that it will be "man of the people" Nigel Farage's message to voters. And that Labour will give him plenty of ammunition to make his point.
Keeping any politician away from a photo op – let’s be honest, most would be happy to be photo’d at the opening of a yoghurt pot, is probably too much to ask – even of Labour, traditionally held to a higher standard by their parsimonious critics, after the event.
Well then they could have done the photos and then said, 'By the way, no way are they getting compensation.'
This is the problem with Labour's election strategy of saying nothing but letting people read what they want into it. People are going to assume that the 'unspoken message' means they are going to get what they want.
Labour promised nothing in the election but many on here were sure there were nudge nudge wink wink signals that meant they were going to do the 'right' thing once in power. Some of us pointed out this was a very dangerous strategy because letting people think you're on their side and then not doing what was implied is a really good way to ensure someone never votes for you again. Do it to enough people and suddenly you will find no one is going to vote for you. Better get ready for a turbo-nutter Badenoch/Farage government in 4 years time.
Quite apart from that, in this case, Labour did quite a bit more than just take some pictures:
The anger was compounded by historic clips circulating on social media of Labour ministers including Angela Rayner, Yvette Cooper, work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall and Ms Reeves making the promise to pay compensation.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-waspi-women-betrayal-b2666460.html
Agree, I wasn’t complaining, just pointing out that the WASPI women’s key ‘complaint’ is that they want to be compensated for “not paying attention”.
… for 15 years! That’s wilful ignorance. If we’re going to have to compensate people for that then the country will be bankrupt before the end of the week
The result will be people feeling much poorer in their pockets.
That was something which Trump hammered over and over again during the US presidential election campaign........."Ask yourself, are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?"
Despite how much of it was directly the fault of Joe Biden the answer to that question is widely seen as having been hugely instrumental in Trump winning the election.
On the subject of problems looming for Starmer, this might be one to watch
BBC News - Minister named in Bangladesh corruption probe
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3zqen209go
It's one thing to be just tarred with the same brush as her aunt, but seems to suggest she was actively involved in setting up a deal with Russia. I'd have thought any connection to the old Bangladeshi regime would be thoroughly checked out before appointing someone as a minister.
Innocent until proven guilty, or stand down honourably pending any enquiry? I'd hope the latter.
It really is the government’s job to create economic conditions the fix the foundations.
Every LCE has been "pump-priming" (or laying the foundations) since the 2008 crash, and then again post COVID. There has never been at any time in history when there's been more money sloshing about, as cheaply, and accessibly as there is now, we've had, more-or-less without any pause, permanent economic stimulus for the last two decades.
The result has been a massive distortion of what are supposed to be capitalist economies, where access to money has become ill-disciplined and grossly misallocated. The price of keeping zombie firms alive is cheap. Reality-distorting valuations of stupid start-ups has become the norm. Cheap money has created asset bubbles which in turn has fuelled deep inequality and capital concentration, and the answer from the likes of Richard Murphy? Govts should spend more money...I think it's been demonstrated beyond any real query that it hasn't worked.
I wonder if voters will pick up on that by 2029?
A week is a long time in politics. So far Farage has never failed not to **** up everything that he touches. Frankly I'm amazed that Reform has lasted as long as it has as a functioning entity, I wouldn't bet serious money that it exists by this time next month, let alone 2029.
The proposed reforms to donations will possibly (hopefully) scupper a lot of the cash he's anticipating over the next few years:
Yeah… remember that Reform will have to find candidates for every constituency who don’t have a photo of them giving a Nazi salute at a far right rally lurking somewhere.
Everyone, most of all the Tories, seem to be glossing over the fact that the main beneficiaries of the collapse of the Tory vote wasn’t Reform but the Lib Dems. Maybe because it doesn’t fit the present ridiculous ‘Farage will the next PM’ narrative
And before you say Reform/Tory coalition… Farage hasn’t managed a coalition with those within his own party that’s lasted more than 5 minutes
Cheap money has created asset bubbles which in turn has fuelled deep inequality and capital concentration, and the answer from the likes of Richard Murphy? Govts should spend more money
The problem is the money has been going to the top, rather than the general population. Murphy's (and every other MMT advocate) point is that economic growth is generated from govt spending (mostly, if you ignore inward investment), and that it then needs to be taxed back, and fiscal policy should be set to reclaim the money from those who can most afford it. That's what's not happening. Where we're at now is that the govt spends money into the economy, it goes directly into the pockets of financiers, bankers, billionaire industrialists and multinational corporations, and then they are not taxed accordingly. The result is crumbling public services, stagnant wages for the vast majority, and ballooning wealth among the top 1% of asset owners. The answer isn't for govt to spend less, it's to tax the rich more.
The answer isn’t for govt to spend less, it’s to tax the rich more.
Very much this. Talking of the problem with Labour and it’s present awful comms (who on earth is meant to be in charge of that?), they’ve totally failed to make more of Kemi Badanochs statement this week. She is advocating a flat rate of tax which means the rich would be taxed far less and the poor considerably more. So they’ve nailed their colours to the mast on that, which Labour should be gleefully pointing out