MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Why does this blue strip exist?
1) it's only three, sparsely-populated seats so it looks more impressive than it really is
2) this part of Scotland has always spoken English or its forebears - hence lowlanders being described as Sassenachs [Saxons], basically low level "No True Scotsman" trolling
3) a chunk of those people cross the English-Scottish border daily or weekly, and realise how nuts a customs barrier between the two (as a result of Scottish independence, and then Scotland joining the EU) would be.
4) FPTP makes it look more definitive than it is - Dumfries and Galloway was only a 3.5% difference between SNP and Tories.
Mostly 1 and 4, I think.
An interesting concluding two paragraphs:
Nevertheless, experienced Labour figures believe that Starmer’s apparent war on the left has the potential to damage the party even if it doesn’t stop them forming the next government.
“None of this will make a difference to the election result but there is a big list of gripes and problems they are storing up for the future,” said one.
I have long suggested that a huge Labour majority could prove to be a nightmare for Keir Starmer. His best hope to maintain tight discipline is for a small but workable majority, it will also give him the excuse not to carry out any sort of radical government programme.
On the other hand if he gets a three hundred seat majority on July 4th I expect civil war to break in the Labour Party the following Monday. And if there are large scale rebellions over issues such as Gaza there might not be enough Tory MPs to help him out.
This week in the midst of a general election campaign Starmer remarkably managed to unite even blairite politicians (Yvette cooper ffs) against his handling of Diane Abbott mess. The link above is the first time that I have seen Morgan McSweeney's name mentioned with regards to who is pulling Starmer's strings but his hand (and David Evans) is obvious imo.
I reckon the suggestion of "problems they are storing up for the future" probably has a lot of validity. Among many potential problems is the blocking of popular candidates and the imposition of Starmer stooges which have been parachuted in. He might get away with it during the height of a general election campaign but local parties are going to have to live with MPs forced on them for the next 5 years. That can't create a party at peace with itself.
That is my only hope. Starmer gets the party elected, the very high number of Labour MPs then actually want Labour things rather than Tory things and do a rebellion. If there are 400 Labour MPs there is no way the majority of them are going to be Starmer supporters as there must be a reason they chose Labour Party rather than Tory party (admittedly some will have chosen it to give them best chance to be an MP)
Why does this blue strip exist?
Mountain bikers are actually over-compensating shy-Tories.
What's that map based on ? It has some really strange predictions for seats I know. It shows a swing to Labour as you' expect but the Libdems losing a higher proportion of their vote than the Tories in a Tory stronghold. I don't believe it.
You said Tony Blair didn't follow the rule that politicians' careers always end in failure, Ernie. As far as I'm concerned he was the biggest failure in the last 100 years. He betrayed his party's values, betrayed his voters, has more unnecessary blood on his hands, did more to destabilise the world order, lent his poison voice to remain thus facilitating Brexit and made his party unelectable for as long as people remembered what he did... . He and Brown hold the bottom two places in the ranking of favourite prime ministers. Churchill and Atlee first and second.
In fact **** it, I'm voting LibDem even though that map suggests I should vote Labour. Blair, the nastiest most hated living Brit.
Maybe just coincidence but the years Blair was in the country felt a better place to live in.
Maybe just coincidence but the years Blair was in the country felt a better place to live in.
I think it's more to do with the fact the world happened to be having a huge debt fueled party up until 2007 (helped by the fact China was making everything we could want for pennies) and we're still suffering from the hangover.
It's crazy to think of just how unrealistic expectations were between the collapse of the Soviet Union and the financial crisis.
It's completely ridiculous to hark back to 2007 for excuses for the current situation. 14 years of tory and that's really the best you can do?
The "financial crisis" was over and done by 2010ish at the latest.
You might as well blame it on the Suez Canal crisis, or the Boer War
Maybe just coincidence but the years Blair was in the country felt a better place to live in.
Differing perspectives I guess.
Iraq
2003 - 2007 Fatalities: 174, Wounded: 2,602.
Afghanistan
2001 - 2007 Fatalities: 86, Wounded: 834
I'd say the UK ****ing sucked for the individuals, families and those who came home with significant & life changing injuries.
@Edukator Mark Pack (who is the LD President but has a professional interest in polling) is a bit dubious about MRP and regards it as just another tool rather than the magic bullet some other commentators describe.
The “financial crisis” was over and done by 2010ish at the latest.
Depends on how you view things, I guess.
Yes, the stock market had recovered but the standard of living for middle and working classes is still nowhere near where it was prior to 2007. And this is a worldwide phenomenon. You can't blame the Tories for all the problems in the world.
If you are a boomer or gen-Xer then most likely you wouldn't notice. You've already bought a house and you've already got a decent pension pot prior to 2007. You saw blip and then you went back to getting richer and richer.
For those under the age of 40 the financial crisis is very much still ongoing.
If you are a boomer or gen-Xer then most likely you wouldn’t notice. You’ve already bought a house and you’ve already got a decent pension pot prior to 2007. You saw blip and then you went back to getting richer and richer.
Oh I don’t know. I’m a Gen Xer and I lost my business and pretty much everything but the clothes I was stood up in. As did a lot of similarly aged people I know in the same situation. It’s still massively impacting my life now
It totally destroyed my mental health. If it wasn’t for certain people I probably wouldn’t be here
You honestly don’t think the financial crisis affected anyone over 40?
I’ve read some bollocks on here over the years, but I think that probably qualifies for some kind of award
Again, NOT TALKING ABOUT INDIVIDUALS!
The fact is, if you are a gen-Xer or a boomer you are statistically far far far more likely to be wealthy compared to a millennial. That doesn't mean you as an individual are more wealthy than the average millennial.
If people are going to get upset every time age is mentioned in a thread where we are talking about an election (where age is the single most reliable indicator of which way a person is likely to vote) then it is just going to be a never-ending series of people lining up to throw their toys out the pram.
Maybe, as has been suggested multiple times before, we should stop making sweeping generalisations about generational groupings. If you did it about race or sexuality or gender, it would be pretty offensive - I hope doing the same thing about Boomers or Gen Xers is not as offensive as all that, but it plays the same game in a lower league.
The fact is, if you are a gen-Xer or a boomer you are statistically far far far more likely to be wealthy compared to a millennial
Well duh, of course they are, as a group the boomers and gen-Xers have accumulating wealth for longer. Yes it's undeniable the boomers as a group are in a better position financially then the following generations will be but it wasnt a planned wealthy, they just got so constantly harping on about doesnt really help.
A lot of it has been compounded by government stupidity, if mortgage leading had been controlled properly by government to sensible multiples of demonstrable income house prices wouldn't be anywhere near as high as they are now. House pricing is driven by demand (which could also have been reduced if the government's had actively built more houses) and ability to pay. House prices arent based on what the cost, they are based on what people can borrow.
This wasn't done to deliberately make boomers wealthy, it's occurred because governments were weak, didn't intervene, pandered to Nimbys and liked the over inflated value of housing in the national balance sheet.
We need to focus on the root causes of the wealth inequality not the symptoms.
Maybe, as has been suggested multiple times before, we should stop making sweeping generalisations about generational groupings.
It's a thread about an election. Age is the single most reliable indicator of which way a person is going to vote.
If you are older you are also STATISTICALLY MORE LIKELY (sorry, if I don't shout everyone just assumes I mean them as an individual) to be wealthier.
How the **** do you talk about an election in this climate without mentioning age? Like I said before, it's like trying to talk about elections in the 70s without mentioning what people did for a living.
I'd be surprised if there weren't shifts in attitude even amongst the boomers. I know a few people who're pissed off about eg £16k for an op or wait forever, grandkids' student fees, care costs disinheriting their children, family members being screwed by landlords, state pension being so low. There are boomers even in Sheffield but not a single Tory elected. There is hope yet.
I agree, but in fairness Brucewee did say 'most likely'. Maybe it should have been 'in many cases' or 'many boomers or gen x-ers' but the sentiment is there.
I know some Gen x-ers from both camps for sure, and can equally say that by a spin of the coin their situations could be reversed had things gone the other way. I think realising that is part of what makes this Gen x-er happy that I was lucky but less likely to pull up the ladder now, YMMV.
"the standard of living for middle and working classes is still nowhere near where it was prior to 2007. And this is a worldwide phenomenon."
This is just absolute complete unadulterated bollocks.
Up to the last decade, people had been getting richer, living standards improving, life expectancy growing, pretty much year on year since the start of recorded history. Yes you get the odd blip with a recession but nothing that really lasts.
You appear to have fallen hook line and sinker for the Tory gaslighting that we should all be getting poorer and unhealthier, apart from a few of the very richest.
Well duh, of course they are, as a group the boomers and gen-Xers have accumulating wealth for longer.
That part is a given, but there is the additional factor where millennials are far behind where they should be in terms of wealth accumulation. They have accumulated far less wealth than boomers and genX had by the same age. And it's not because they keep buying avocado toast.
The dis-proportionally wealthy are going to vote to keep their wealth while the dis-proportionally poor are going to vote to redistribute that wealth.
That is why age is such a good indicator of voting intention. Currently the older you are the more dis.proportionally wealthy you are (STATISTICALLY, NOT YOU INDIVIDUALLY).
We need to focus on the root causes of the wealth inequality not the symptoms.
The root cause is that boomers have been the largest voting bloc for 50 years and have been voting for parties that will ensure they can accumulate and keep the most wealth.
It's not that they are evil, it's just demographics and voting.
Under the Tories we've had the biggest cut in incomes since the Napoleonic wars, av pay on trend should have been £14k higher than it is. Meanwhile, the number of billionaires .....
This is just absolute complete unadulterated bollocks.
Just out of interest, how old are you?
Roughly, we don't need your date of birth.
If you are older you are also STATISTICALLY MORE LIKELY (sorry, if I don’t shout everyone just assume I mean them as an individual) to be wealthier.
You keep saying it, and it continues to be an utterly meaningless generalisation that's inaccurate for many thousands of people. Talk about age and likelihood of voting for particular parties by all means if you wish, but knock the generalisations about wealth on the head. You wouldn't do it about, say, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, religion, etc.
You said Tony Blair didn’t follow the rule that politicians’ careers always end in failure, Ernie. As far as I’m concerned he was the biggest failure in the last 100 years.
I am of course referring to whether they won or lost elections and whether they were sacked or simply retired at a time of their own choosing. Not whether I personally approved of them or not.
Using that criteria I cannot think of any postwar prime minister or party leader who didn't either lose an election or was sacked by their own party, apart from Tony Blair.
On a personal level my dislike for Tony Blair was so great, even before he became prime minister, that in the 1997 general election I canvassed for the Liberal Democrats. As prime minister he was even worse than I had expected. There is a reason why Margaret Thatcher famously claimed that "New Labour" represented her greatest success.
Anyway, photo of the week goes to Rishi once again failing the Malcolm Tucker test
’yes… right a bit, prime minister, yeah, a bit further right… perfect!’
I keep popping back here for sensible, reasoned debate from intelligent people.
Seems very lacking though - just ‘I know best’ points scoring and the same old argument going round and round.
You wouldn’t do it about, say, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, religion, etc.
Actually, I would say ethnicity and gender are pretty good indicators of wealth (and also voting intentions). Both have been discussed with respect to voting intentions in the last few pages.
Not sure if sexuality and religion are good indicators of wealth but they certainly are of voting intentions.
Can you please just dial down your sensitivity a bit and realise that when we talk about voting you have to generalise? Otherwise you end up polling every single individual in the UK. We are going to do that anyway on 4th July but unless you want to not talk about the election before that date I suggest you just accept that generalisations have to be made.
I keep popping back here for sensible, reasoned debate from intelligent people.
Are you new here?
Rishi is getting properly desperate now. After we’ve had 5 years of the total non-emergence of ‘Levelling Up’ and it turning out to be (surprise, surprise) nothing more than a soundbite, the little fella is heading to the ‘Red Wall’ today with some loose change he found down the back of the sofa…
Tories pledge £20m each of levelling-up funds to 30 more towns
Hes going to give 30 towns 20 million quid each OVER TEN YEARS and that’s supposed to make up for the absolute decimation of local council budgets over the last 14 years of austerity, is it Rishi?
Someone should remind him of the Who lyric “we won’t be fooled again”. They’re finished up here!
I’m sure his minders will ensure he’s helicoptered in and out without the possibility of bumping into any of those scary northerners
Maybe just coincidence but the years Blair was in the country felt a better place to live in.
When Tony Blair became prime minister he inherited from the Tories a thriving economy, and there was still plenty of family silver to sell off, by the time the shit hit the neoliberal fan he was conveniently gone and he had retired from Westminster politics.
So yeah, I can understand the perception. But it is about as useful as perceiving that Sir Keir Starmer must be the greatest ever postwar leader of the Opposition because the current Tory government are about to be annihilated next month.
@ernielynch - other than the willingness to follow the US to war, what did you dislike about the Blair years?
On the plus side I recall poverty falling, particularly child poverty. I would agree though they didn’t do enough to stop people and organisations taking on debt and some of the financial instruments in use got out of hand.
Can you please just dial down your sensitivity a bit and realise that when we talk about voting you haveto generalise?
If you want to generalise about voting intentions, be my guest - generalising about generational wealth and intentions to vote based on maintaining that wealth is lazy, inaccurate stereotyping.
Hes going to give 30 towns 20 million quid each OVER TEN YEARS and that’s supposed to make up for the absolute decimation of local council budgets over the last 14 years of austerity, is it Rishi?
One is minded of Robert Jenrick - put in charge of a similar scheme to fund the 100 poorest constituenciea, he awarded the maximum amount to his and his mates constituencies, which were barely amongst the 300 poorest constituencies.
If you want to generalise about voting intentions, be my guest – generalising about generational wealth and intentions to vote based on maintaining that wealth is lazy, inaccurate stereotyping.
Generational wealth is not speculation. It's something that can and does get measured. And the measurements reveal that millennials are behind when compared to boomers at the same age.
And voting in your own interests is not something that is limited to a particular generation. Sure, some people are going to be more or less altruistic but on average there is always a slight preference for parties that are going to advance your own personal wealth. Over time, even small preferences compound and boomers have had a slight advantage for 50 years.
It adds up.
I'm not saying anything that isn't backed up by data and I'm not saying any generation is 'better' than the other. Where we are is just an accident of demographics in the Western world.
@ernielynch – other than the willingness to follow the US to war, what did you dislike about the Blair years?
Well I wouldn't really want to discuss the paid advisor to brutal and murderous dictators at the best of times, and I don't think this thread should be the place to do it anyway.
But to sum it up in one sentence - I dislike him for all the reasons that Margaret Thatcher liked him.
And his premiership sowed the seeds for the 2010 coalition government and austerity.
Differing perspectives I guess.
Iraq
2003 – 2007 Fatalities: 174, Wounded: 2,602.Afghanistan
2001 – 2007 Fatalities: 86, Wounded: 834I’d say the UK **** sucked for the individuals, families and those who came home with significant & life changing injuries.
In total that's less than 2 months worth of UK road deaths. I feel sorry for those we invaded but life here for the vast majority was much better under Blair than under the subsequent Tory governments.
In total that’s less than 2 months worth of UK road deaths. I feel sorry for those we invaded but life here for the vast majority was much better under Blair than under the subsequent Tory governments.
Going back to the point I made originally (before someone who regularly refers to 'racist pensioners' got offended by an age based generalisation), I think it's easy to overestimate the effects of a government.
Blair was in power in a post-Soviet, pre-financial crisis period of perma-expansion and debt fueled excess. He may have made things a bit better for certain sections of society, but the party was going to happen whether he was there or not.
The Tories took over and made a period that was going to be rough anyway even rougher than it had to be.
But if Blair was born 15 years later and took over in 2010 things would have still been rough. Perhaps not quite as rough but his politics doesn't suggest to me the poor would have had a much easier time.
Generational wealth is not speculation. It’s something that can and does get measured.
I don't doubt.
And the measurements reveal that millennials are behind when compared to boomers at the same age.
Ah - those sweeping generalisations again.
And voting in your own interests is not something that is limited to a particular generation. Sure, some people are going to be more or less altruistic but on average there is always a slight preference for parties that are going to advance your own personal wealth.
I don't think many are voting to protect their wealth - I think the majority have been sold a bunch of lies about a new period of British Empire and manufactured fear about refugees, immigrants, knife crime, leftie lawyers, the woke and Muslims.
Ah – those sweeping generalisations again.
Also known as data.
I don’t think many are voting to protect their wealth – I think the majority have been sold a bunch of lies about a new period of British Empire and manufactured fear about refugees, immigrants, knife crime, leftie lawyers, the woke and Muslims.
This is the crux of the matter.
There is little debate on economics and distribution of wealth because in reality there is little difference between Labour and the Tories on these points. That's why everything you mentioned is front and centre.
In total that’s less than 2 months worth of UK road deaths. I feel sorry for those we invaded but life here for the vast majority was much better......
Yeah the hundreds of thousands who died as the result of the decision to go to war were mostly foreigners.
Which of course was always going to be the case otherwise Blair would never have agreed to go to war. He obviously never believed for a moment that weapons of "mass" destruction existed, so he could be sure that thousands of Brits would not die.
I feel "sorry" for all those foreigners who died too. I think this is when thoughts and prayers are important.
He may have made things a bit better for certain sections of society, but the party was going to happen whether he was there or not.
That's totally inaccurate. There were deliberate policies by Blair and Brown to bring down poverty and child poverty. The poorest in our society were targeted to improve their lot.
We've had increasing inequity in our society since 2010, more children in poverty, more children in destitution, less access to services.
Surestart and the minimum wage were progressive policies that genuinely improved our country. When certain commentators in here bang on about them being red Tories; the Tories would never have done surestart and got rid of it as fast as they could in austerity
@BruceWee, I'm 55. I'm relatively rich, I know that. And that's before any inheritances. Not sure how it really affects the argument. Which is that 14 years of tory austerity and spiteful vandalism has basically wrecked the economy, based on a toxic combination of economic zealotry and isolationist jingoism.
I'm old enough to remember black wednesday, and for all the harm that did (very real tangible harm to many real people) the economy as a whole recovered and people as a whole got richer.
Also putting aside the financial mechanism (PFI); the new labour government invested in new hospitals and schools (building schools for the future).
PFI was a bad execution of a good intention, which again we would not have seen with a continuation of the Tories.
They also put money into improving homes, and there were some massive schemes being developed that were killed by austerity
There were deliberate policies by Blair and Brown to bring down poverty and child poverty.
Well using government money to subsidise greedy money-grabbing profit-chasing employers who won't pay a decent living wage is one way to do it I guess.
Just as well that there is a generous money tree after all, eh?
PFI was a bad execution of a good intention, which again we would not have seen with a continuation of the Tories.
PFI was a Tory government initiative which New Labour grabbed and ran with.
Also known as data.
No, that's not data - it's a sweeping generalisation.
That’s why everything you mentioned is front and centre.
Everything I mentioned is front and centre because for almost all of the last 14 years, that's what the government has been selling. So I think that saying...
The dis-proportionally wealthy are going to vote to keep their wealth while the dis-proportionally poor are going to vote to redistribute that wealth.
... is a nonsense. I don't think many Tory voters do so to keep their wealth, I think they do it because they're ultimately worried about being knifed by an illegal immigrant who'll be got off the charges by a woke lefty lawyer.
That’s totally inaccurate. There were deliberate policies by Blair and Brown to bring down poverty and child poverty. The poorest in our society were targeted to improve their lot.
Child poverty also decreased in the US over the same period. My point is no government can eliminate the effects of the global economy. All it can do is mitigate them (or make them worse).
That's why saying, 'Things seemed so much better under Blair' is not really helpful. Of course things were better under Blair. Even the Tories would have struggled to **** things up completely the same period.
Anyway back to 2024 :
“The Conservatives would have fewer than 100 seats. They would be the official opposition, but they would have less than half of the opposition MPs - 72 out of 157.”
The Tories would be a minority within the opposition, how humiliating! 🤣😂
I’m old enough to remember black wednesday, and for all the harm that did (very real tangible harm to many real people) the economy as a whole recovered and people as a whole got richer.
For people of your generation.
People of my generation are only now getting on the housing market, starting a pension, etc
You said the financial crisis was all over by 2010. Sorry, but for people under the age of 40 that's complete and utter bollocks. But I appreciate that for people who are around 55 it's true.
No, that’s not data – it’s a sweeping generalisation.
No, if you count up all the money and then put the numbers in a spreadsheet then it's data. Which is what they did. Sorry if you don't like the numbers.
Everything I mentioned is front and centre because for almost all of the last 14 years, that’s what the government has been selling.
Yes, because if Labour and the Tories fundamentally agree on the economic questions then what else is there?
I don’t think many Tory voters do so to keep their wealth,
The reason wealthy people have no reason to fear anyone coming for their stuff is no party is willing to even talk about doing it. They are free to spend their time worrying about brown people and the wokerati instead.
What has been going on since 2010 isn't the financial crisis of 2008! It's the Tory crisis! I'm well aware that the economy has tanked for many people since then. My own business was wiped out by brexit. I would be even richer if it hadn't been. Instead, I'm retired, economically inactive, barely paying a penny in tax. My business paid a few tens of thousands while it was running. That's just one example of the real tangible harm done by the tories for purely ideological reasons and nothing at all to do with the global financial crisis of 2008.
It’s the Tory crisis!
How are the Tories affecting US politics, the European economy, etc?
Don't get me wrong, I think the Tories made a bad situation much much worse but I think blaming them for all the ills of the Western world is a bit much.
It's almost as if both parties subscribe to the idea that the private sector creates wealth without the state.
Doesn't matter let it fail. Results will be obvious eventually. Labour will then have to do something that needs a larger deficit. Be ready for that one.
Streeting got a good kicking on QT. And Farage on there... My god.
Apparently a *shocker* of a poll coming tonight from the Observer (bigging up their own poll no doubt.)
And d:ream banned Labour from using their song! 🤣
Quite looking forward to the debates. I don't think either will come out looking good. But Sunak for sure is rubbish at front of house stuff.
I’m not blaming the tories for all of the ills in the western world. I’m blaming them for quite deliberately making things worse.
That’s just one example of the real tangible harm done by the tories for purely ideological reasons and nothing at all to do with the global financial crisis of 2008.
It’s worth noting that the present polling not only has a substantial general lead for Labour, but they’ve been consistently ahead on economic competence. It’s one area where they’re winning, hands down. And rightly so.
If anyone was in any doubt the damage the Tories have inflicted on the economy with Brexit, austerity and other purely ideological nonsense* then Mad Lizzies insane mini-budget certainly put paid to that
*Brexit has cost the company I’m presently working for tens of millions of pounds in additional costs. When the mountains of paperwork and added costs materialised after Johnson’s ‘oven-ready’ deal, they hemorrhaged the EU business they’d built over decades and had no option but to open 2 offices and a warehousing operation within the EU, laying UK staff off. Well done for ‘Taking Back Control’ 🙄
No, if you count up all the money and then put the numbers in a spreadsheet then it’s data. Which is what they did. Sorry if you don’t like the numbers.
Numbers are numbers, my opinions of them are of no relevance. However...
And the measurements reveal that millennials are behind when compared to boomers at the same age.
... is a sweeping generalisation.
The reason wealthy people have no reason to fear anyone coming for their stuff is no party is willing to even talk about doing it. They are free to spend their time worrying about brown people and the wokerati instead.
You weren't talking about wealthy people, you were talking about most boomers and gen X.
they’ve been consistently ahead on economic competence. It’s one area where they’re winning, hands down. And rightly so.
IME people's perception of "economic competence" is not good. Which imo is why the Tories are so successful in winning general elections and creating myths surrounding the economy.
Edit: According to the latest figures from YouGov Labour lead the Tories over the economy by 7%. I am not sure I would describe that as winning hands down.
IME people’s perception of “economic competence” is not good. Which imo is why the Tories are so successful in winning general elections and creating myths surrounding the economy.
Totally.
There has been this myth perpetuated for years about the Tories with the economy - and all that was taking place was a transfer of state created wealth through to the finance sector giving the illusion of success.
You can only keep selling stuff off for so long until it catches up with you.
eBay economy.
However Labour didn't help themselves at the last election by not defending themselves against the GFC and claiming they'd ran out of money. That was ridiculous. And although a joke it got picked up by lots of journos.
you were talking about most boomers and gen X.
'Statistically more likely' and 'most' are not the same thing.
So Sunak today trying taking full advantage of the Diane Abbott fiasco. Vote Starmer, get Rayner and the hard labour left. Fine by me. 😀
I really don't know what the hard left actually is these days. More like the soft left.
Can you really look at the Zack Polanski and call him hard left. 🤣 Hanging out with dogs and trees.
I see we agree on much about Blair, Ernie.
In the 97 manifesto he promised not to introduce tuition fees but did so immediately after the election. Student debt has become a problem both for the students in debt and the economy as a whole as much of it will have to be written off one day.
I lived the economic "boom" of the Blair period in France. It had very little to do with Blair's policies if it was a boom at all. It was boom and bust with little, too little management by the "independant" BOE or government. I was so concerned about the runaway train tech boom economy that the banks were fuelling I sold my whole share portfolio in Spring 2000 thus escaping a far more significant market hiccup than subprime. It was only last year that the CAC 40 reached 2000 levels again.
I watched from afar and did a lot of head shaking, he then started going on about WMDs and I got angry because Hans Blix said there weren't any apart from some old British chemical shells they'd handed over.
And Starmer in all that. Promises, U-turns, hates the socialists in his own party. If ever there was an opportunity to make some vaguely socialist pledges, stick to them and still win an election it's now. It's an opportunity Mr DPP, natural authoritarian Tory isn't interested in.
Can you really look at the Zack Polanski and call him hard left.
Eh? Zack Polanski is Deputy Leader of the Green Party, what has he got to do with the Diane Abbott fiasco??
Btw Zack Polanski is both Jewish and an extremely passionate supporter of Palestine, so he wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of surviving in today's Labour Party.
If ever there was an opportunity to make some vaguely socialist pledges, stick to them and still win an election it’s now
Put it on a banner for crying out loud.
Swap socialist for progressive to stop people crying about stuff. Job mostly done.
I hate how the Tories aren't worried about being hypocritical or failures and just bluster on, and the left are scared of their shadows. Half the problem.
Let's be really scared about fixing the NHS with tools of state, but instead we can do it with a 'righty' ideologically flawed package which ignores basic maths.
What is Great British Energy? and how will it differ from Ynni Cymru which Wales Government are in the process of setting up
Eh? Zack Polanski is Deputy Leader of the Green Party, what has he got to do with the Diane Abbott fiasco??
Sometimes you're a bit too fast off the cuff for your own good man.
I opened with a general point about the hard left.
I really don’t know what the hard left actually is these days. More like the soft left.
I was using what might be described as an archetype of what is the hard left.
We know Labour don't have the hard left any longer.
Simple point of reference. What is the hard left? Dunno. Just asking.
(No reference to DA intended.)
Next question about Zack Polanski - who is doing stuff with great clarity; why as deputy is he doing nearly all the Comms stuff?
The Green leaders are joint aren't they?
The writing was on the wall when Blair removed clause 4. Very little to celebrate in Blair becoming PM.
He was however, much, much better at speaking and interviews than Starmer. You definitely felt that he knew what he was talking about and had a clear vision of where he wanted the country to go. Just that his vision was so pish - New Labour were barely distinguishable from the Conservatives, much like now.
What is Great British Energy? and how will it differ from Ynni Cymru which Wales Government are in the process of setting up
The website is up. It's scant of real detail but seems pretty dumbed down to me even though it's heading in the correct direction - with a bit too much 'wealth fund' and PFI baggage to it.
The green stuff is pretty scaled back almost to the point of what's the point?
Worth a read.
https://great-british-energy.org.uk/
It's generally good to see some positive stuff though as we're surely short of good positive ideas these days.
Sometimes you’re a bit too fast of the cuff for your own good man.
I opened with a general point about the hard left.
Well okay but since Daz had specifically referenced the "Labour hard left" you perhaps should have made that clear.
Could you really not think of an example of someone who is actually a member of the Labour Party? Are things that serious??
Could you really not think of an example of someone who is actually a member of the Labour Party? Are things that serious??
I can't.
Are the greens hard left?
I associate that with days of Boss Scargill and associated press war.
Not a phrase that makes sense to me if we're in the spirit of tree hugging and saving the NHS.
Would love to be a fly on the wall in labour campaign meetings right now. 'Vote Starmer, get Rayner' splashed across the newspapers is probably the last thing Starmer expected a week ago. And when asked again about it this morning his response was a tetchy 'I dealt with that yesterday'. No Keir, you didn't, all you did was turn a minor issue that no one cared about into a campaign derailing cluster bomb. I'm seriously beginning to think he's going to completely f*** this up.
Parroting Mandelson Starmer says he will create wealth and not only is he relaxed about 'people' making money, he is doggedly determined that they should do so. So, nothing about raising incomes. I see a lot of very necessary strikes on the horizon.
You definitely felt that he knew what he was talking about and had a clear vision of where he wanted the country to go.
LOL I think it was more a case of people thinking they knew what he was talking about! Which to be fair was an extremely clever tactic.
Blair would throw in all the words people wanted to hear in his speeches but without any real context, which left him both commitment-free and free from scrutiny......"good decent people, hard-working families, pride in our country and communities, tough on all that wrong in our society, etc etc"
I once heard Tony Blair speak live when he was Shadow Home Secretary, I had only gone to hear John Smith speak. I was right near the front, just a few feet away from him. I remember thinking after a while "What the **** is this geezer talking about, I understand all the words but I don't know what the **** he is trying to say"
Straight after him John Smith stepped up to the microphone and proceeded to give an excellent example of how a Scotsman should give a proper rousing speech.
Oh lookout everyone, Labour have had another idea!
They're going to use local mayors (etc) to help 2,000,000 unemployed people find jobs!
Why has no one thought of this before?
"Straight after him John Smith stepped up to the microphone and proceeded.."
I couldn't be more anti-Labour Party, but I was genuinely saddened when John Smith died, seemed a genuinely decent guy and a real politician, and probably the leader Britain needed at the time. And we got snake Blair instead. Tragic.
They've had a couple of good eggs over the years, Kate Hoey (I voted for her), and ... erm...
No Keir, you didn’t, all you did was turn a minor issue that no one cared about into a campaign derailing cluster bomb.
To be honest I don't think anything could now derail Labour's general election campaign, even if Starmer turned up to a TV studio drunk and with his knob hanging out of his pants.
To be honest I don’t think anything could now derail Labour’s general election campaign
Well by derail I suppose I mean it's looking more like an actual campaign rather than a victory procession. I don't think Labour will fail to win a majority, but if Starmer carries on like this that will be shrinking by the week. We could be looking at something like a 2017 scenario where the tories do much better than expected but not quite enough to stop a labour govt. That would be very funny as Sunak might have to hang on as leader and cancel his Californian getaway while Starmer would be a lame duck PM with a furious party wondering how he nearly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.