Forum menu
Voters really didn't
No I know that. My comment was more a statement of fact. Starmer was voted in as PM, and my god is he performing the role a lot of us suspected he would.
I suppose it just shows that despite all that professional experience and competence between him and his advisors they have still managed to balls it all up. I almost feel sorry for McSweeney. All that effort to regain power and they chose the wrong man to be the figurehead. 🤦♂️
Starmer was voted in as PM, and my god is he performing the role a lot of us suspected he would.
Well, what are you talking about specifically? the plan to increase spending on legal aid fund? Increasing council spending by £69Billion? Perhaps the renationalisation of military housing after the shambles of Tory outsourcing, or the compensation for LGBT+ veterans dismissed because of discrimination? (pot of £75 million for that) Or the he extra £100 million announced for hospice funding? I know, the the commitment to remove dangerous cladding by 2029? Maybe the reversal of the Tory policy to exclude unions from school pay negotiations? The 1400 new prisons places to avoid the "letting prisoners out early" shit-show that they inherited from the tories? The cut to high street rates for small businesses?
I mean, you be a bit more specific, no?
The cut to high street rates for small businesses?
You'd have to be more specific on that too.
Because there's been BR discounts in place for ages. Labour extended and promised to do something and as far as I know that hasn't happened. I could have missed something on that.
Other than the 69bn (6% lift) everything else you mentioned ain't going to fix much on the grand-scale that is needed.
Point is we all recognised they might tinker at the seems but the scale of their failure dwarfs the things mentioned here.
Perhaps the renationalisation of military housing after the shambles of Tory outsourcing
You really picked issues that are foremost on people's minds didn't you Nick?!
And we have had more than 13 years of Labour government since that particular Tory outsourcing shambles was introduced.
The only reason that Starmer's government are renationalising military housing is firstly because it will save the Chancellor £millions every year, and secondly because it is a continuation of Rishi Sunak's government policy!
Three years ago :
https://tlio.org.uk/military-homes-re-nationalisation-row-heads-to-court/
"I GUY HANDS’ housing firm has launched legal proceedings against the Government to block the renationalisation of its portfolio of thousands of military homes."
Duplicate deleted
"Any person applying for citizenship from 10 February 2025, who previously entered the UK illegally will normally be refused, regardless of the time that has passed since the illegal entry took place."
(sorry couldn't get it to work)
Even Starmer's most blatant Centrist fan club have shit themselves today.
Ian Dunt in a constant state of surprise at his regular bad calls.
Keir Starmer's most consistent and welcome message is that people should be treated with dignity. How does stripping refugees of the right to citizenship square with that?
— Ian Dunt (@iandunt.bsky.social) February 11, 2025 at 3:25 PM
From the link above:
No idea why Labour have done this - it makes no sense either as a deterrent or a signal of enforcement/control.
It might look as if it makes no sense but I am sure that Donald Trump, for example, would understand
Well a YouGov poll taken this weekend suggests that Labour's dog-whistling might be starting to have an effect..... they are up 1% !
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/51560-voting-intention-lab-25-ref-26-con-21-9-10-feb-2025
Obviously Reform UK are still in the lead but it is starting to look like a two horse race between Reform UK and Labour with the Tories trailing. The question is which party will Britain's bigots eventually embrace?
I think the Tories should perhaps consider replacing their leader with a white man, like Labour and Reform. They can't be doing themselves any favours.
But unless we go to a two party system like the US
we're not a million miles off but the main reason the US is so utterly, utterly ****ed is that there is no central ground. they just shout at each other. now look and and see how the president's BFF is disabling the state at pretty much every level. i wish we would watch and learn but we're never very far behind the US in a lot of things. buckle up Dorothy cos things are going to get bumpy unless someone in labour wakes TF up and starts turning the boat. i am not hopeful.
If you successfully claim asylum here, and make your life here, there should be a route to becoming a UK citizen if you want to. This new rule makes no sense, and needs to be reversed.
It makes perfect sense if you want to distract from the problems of austerity and neoliberalism by scapegoating refugees and immigrants instead. Just another demonstration of SKS's leaderships moral vacuum and chasing reform and the tories to right wing populism, we are following the same path as the US, and SKS is rolling out the red carpet for the oligarchs and their racist propaganda.
Well it is what we voted for - it was plain to see. I am sure he will change soon though into something progressive just as we were told by many on this very forum he would after pretending to be a **** just to win the election.
I mean, you be a bit more specific, no?
Ok, what I'm talking about is that we all knew he would govern in the style of a technocratic centre right tory, and that's exactly what he's doing. The last PM we had like him was either May or Major, and to be honest I think they were probably more left wing than Starmer. You didn't see Major slashing pubic spending to in response to bond market movements.
Also your 69 billion for local authorities is the total settlement, not extra cash. It's only a 6.8% increase in spending terms, and yet there were recent reports that the labour govt is preparing to remove the 5% cap on council tax increases with some councils increasing council tax by 10-25% to avoid going bankrupt. I'm sure council tax payers will welcome another labour tax rise on top of the 2% NI rise that will filter through to them in April.
Labour were voted in to fix all the problems the tories caused. Their response has been to tell voters it's too expensive and too difficult, but they're still going to have to pay higher taxes to keep the bond markets happy. And they wonder why Reform are leading the polls!
The whole bond market thing has become the new stick to hammer everyone over spending.
It's toss, but the predecent was set by the poorly educated to repeat this from Truss onwards.
Bond markets are an epiphenomenon of government. In fact bond markets can only exist becasue of prior goverment spending that made its way into the private sector - to sit in ultra safe assets protected by the government. Aka gilts.
You could remove them tomorrow and spending would simply carry on.
https://new-wayland.com/blog/euthanise-the-bond-market/
I am sure he will change soon though into something progressive just as we were told by many on this very forum he would after pretending to be a **** just to win the election.
Ah but now he is planning for the next election. So we just need to go along with it until then and then he will switch.
Labour are going to lose the next general election so the progressive plan will have to be put on hold until 2034.
We're past the event horizon. Ian managed to turn a blind eye to everything else Labour have messed up on and is now blocking the *hard-left* - such as Zack Polanski for pointing this out.
Not really a fan of his but Adrian Chiles is spot on. Back in the day when Starmer didn't sound like a cross between Captain Mainwaring and Jacob Rees Mogg.
From that clip in the link I can't notice any difference between Starmer's voice in 2017 and his voice now, so the coaching was a waste of time imo, and hardly justified unnecessary close contact with someone outside your bubble during lockdown.
Still I guess it was probably Morgan McSweeney's idea and as a good lawyer Starmer probably just goes along with whatever his client wants.
So Catherine Bennett in the Observer wrote a sharp column about how Starmer is becoming a Cameron-copy-PM. Bennett did the work to prove the point, especially with this paragraph: “Since it can’t be plagiarism, only shared passion can explain why Starmer and David Cameron have phrased their ambitions in identical terms, in wanting, say, a “bonfire of red tape” (Starmer 2024; Cameron 2014). Starmer thinks regulations are “suffocating” (likewise Cameron); Starmer says “we are the builders” (ditto George Osborne); Starmer wants to end “dithering” (Cameron, “cut through the dither”); Starmer declares Britain “open for business” (Cameron, same, 2012); Starmer confronts those “talking our country down” (so did Cameron, 2011).”
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/starmer-dud-now-they-tell-us
Starmer declares Britain “open for business”
Heaven forefend!
Starmer confronts those “talking our country down”
He’s also using “carping from the sidelines” a lot when talking directly to anyone who was in the last government at PMQs. A good technique for belittling their concerns using the same words they used repeatedly against Labour when they were in opposition. Not going to work with Reform of course.
Heaven forefend!
I get the feeling that you might have missed the point Catherine Bennett in the Observer was making, ie, not only is Starmer following very similar policies to David Cameron but he is also using very similar terminology :
And saying that Britain is “open for business” is obviously silly because no one has ever claimed that Britain is "closed for business".
Btw spell check doesn't recognise "forefend", I had to Google it, so top marks for using an archaic word 🙂
Bennet missed 'change' (plus the hands), nicked from Cameron who'd nicked it from Blair.
How long will it before Reeves 'decides' to step aside for not wanting, despite being most unfairly accused of having her nose in the trough twice, to be a distraction from a brilliant government?
Before the election, 42% of Britons said they had at least a broad idea of what the Labour leader stood for, compared to 49% who were unclear. Now, nine months into his premiership, just a third of Britons (33%) say they know what the prime minister stands for compared to 60% who are uncertain.
Overall, Britons are now most likely to think that Starmer has been a “poor” or “terrible” leader since he first took the reins at Labour. Just under half (45%) of all Britons now hold this view, which is up 17 points since March 2023. In contrast, only 16% of Britons think he has been a “great” or “good” leader during his five years in charge (-6), whilst 30% think he has been an average leader (-4).
He's not doing very well !
Theres a whiff of Chamberlain around the man which does not bode well for dealing with the dranged bunch on the other side of the Atlantic.
Surely it is too soon to judge yet isn't it. Don't we need to wait at least 4 years before making a judgement.
Pmsl.
Wait until the bills pile up.
Apparently there's a plan in place to deal with what comes next from Trump.
(No there isn't. )
Theres a whiff of Chamberlain
God I wish so.
Chamberlain is somewhat maligned by history, probably because Churchill wrote it, as whilst he did try and negotiate he also went "and lets buy a ****load of weapons. Oh and that 'radar' thing? lets build that".
For those who arent boycotting Amazon.
"Get In" is a kindle deal of the day (Saturday 5th).
It has somewhat mixed reviews and I wouldnt bother at full price but am giving it a read for a couple of quid (well once it works through the backlog)
@dissonance I have him as trying to do the best he can whilst suffering from a self-imposed handicap (EU red lines and all that rubbish) which restricts the room for manoevre.
I have him as trying to do the best he can
Are you part of the 33%?
"just a third of Britons (33%) say they know what the prime minister stands for compared to 60% who are uncertain."
If so could you sum up in a few sentences what you think the current prime minister stands for?
If so could you sum up in a few sentences what you think the current prime minister stands for?
Three words - “pound shop Farage”
If so could you sum up in a few sentences what you think the current prime minister stands for?
You first.
I have no idea, I am part of the 60% who apparently don't know what Starmer stands for.
Since Sandwich seems to think that Starmer is "trying to do the best he can" I was hoping for maybe a clue from Sandwich.
I can appreciate someone trying to do their best with what they have to hand but, remember Ernie, "Assumption is the mother of all **** ups"!
The Prime Minister has been a vaccuous waste of time and I made the mistake of thinking that the silence on policy was down to clever Wellingtonian strategy of not interupting your opponent whils they are making a mistake. No it appears that there were no ground-breaking policies to be enacted to better the lot of the basic rate tax-payer. What I'm seeing is not socialism in any way shape or form and we (the country) made a mistake not backing the alternatives when Johnson stood for election.
I can appreciate someone trying to do their best with what they have to hand but, remember Ernie, "Assumption is the mother of all **** ups"!
Sure, I fully appreciate that. I might have misunderstood your suggestion that Starmer is "trying to do the best he can" but it gave me the impression that you had some sort of idea what he stood for, I would be genuinely interested in any clues!
But I can see now that you are as baffled as most people apparently are.
However if I was pushed to answer the question I suspect that Starmer probably sees his job as delivering Tory policies and maintaining the status quo but in a more efficient and competent way than the last shower. And to be honest that is a goal that he could reasonably expect to achieve.
Although I doubt that is enough for the electorate.
but it gave me the impression that you had some sort of idea what he stood for
I can't remember when he said it, but even Starmer was quoted as saying "There's no such thing as Starmerism, and never will be" At best he's an anodyne functionary, he says that he sees a problem, and tries to work out the best way to fix it. And that's pretty much the start middle and end of his political philosophy.
Well according to YouGov :
Now, nine months into his premiership, just a third of Britons (33%) say they know what the prime minister stands for
I am intrigued to know what those 33% thinks Starmer stands for!
Or even what Starmer himself thinks he stands for.
Looks like British Steel is about to be nationalised via legislation compelling its private sector Chinese owner to follow direction by the govt. You see it really is that easy.
All the arguments that nationalisation of other nationally important industries is not possible or too expensive are now moot.
easy if there’s cross party consensus, and the current owner doesn’t give a shit!Looks like British Steel is about to be nationalised via legislation compelling its private sector Chinese owner to follow direction by the govt. You see it really is that easy.
All the arguments that nationalisation of other nationally important industries is not possible or too expensive are now moot.
Why on earth would there need to be a cross-party consensus when the government has a majority of more than 150?
Passing any legislation with a majority like that should be a piece of cake.
Edit : Good point about cross-party support though, it's such a radical move that even Badenoch's Tory Party supports it!
Well Badenoch kind of supports it, she says that it should only as a last resort. I am sure Starmer would agree with that.
Looks like British Steel is about to be nationalised via legislation compelling its private sector Chinese owner to follow direction by the govt. You see it really is that easy.
All the arguments that nationalisation of other nationally important industries is not possible or too expensive are now moot.
I have just realised that the government isn't planning to nationalise British Steel after all it will remain in private hands but the government will control it, the complete opposite to arm's length nationalisation.
It turns out that Starmer is in complete agreement with Kemi Badenoch that British Steel should only be nationalised as an absolute last resort.
Meanwhile Reform UK is calling for the immediate and full nationalisation of British Steel.
With Badenoch becoming increasingly more extreme and right-wing than Farage it seems that it's now the turn of Sir Keir Starmer.
Starmer has already blurred the distinctions between "Labour" and Reform UK with his 40% cut in the foreign aid budget, denying asylum seekers arriving in small boats the right of ever having British citizenship, and proudly boasting how tough he is on immigration and claiming to have a higher rate of deportations than occurred under the Tories. Now Starmer appears to be moving the so-called Labour Party's economic policies to the right of Reform UK, and in line with an extreme right-wing Tory leader.
Because of my profoundly antifascist upbringing I could never under any circumstances support a far-right party but I can understand that many perfectly decent people might not be feel restrained by that particular taboo, especially that the Tories and now Labour have blurred the distinctions so much.
The by-election and local elections in a couple of weeks time will be interested.
Once again frogface farage is throwing his tuppence into the ring, crying out for steel industry to be nationalized.
Which is kind of odd as frogface is a free market capitalist, who are dead set* against such nationalizations.
* Unless of course its themselves that have owned it, asset stripped it, and run it into the ground. Then they want it renationalized and will demand they are compensated for their loss