Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
An interesting analysis here :
"The deep dissatisfaction among Labour MPs with the direction and performance of the government, which has spread to even some of Starmer’s most loyal supporters, has created a febrile atmosphere where his future is being called into question."
Oh how Taliban-esque with their ideological purity!
"Nearly 200 Labour MPs are said to oppose them ahead of a crunch vote expected in June"
So whilst STW has just "The Six" the House of Commons has "The Nearly 200" awkward Lefties. The centrists in parliament should come here for solace.
I loved this comment :
Starmer is safe in his position for as long as he wants it. “The Labour party doesn’t do regicide,” one said
Someone tell Jeremy Corbyn!!
If that definition is correct then is the main conflict on this thread between those who think society is broadly OK, just needing a few tweaks, and those who feel society is fundamentally breaking and needs radical change.
That's one of most insightful posts in quite awhile. I'll raise that to a 3rd group which I'm guessing many of the STW sit in, I certainly do. I think the principles behind our society are OK but it is not working, a few at the top hoarding wealth, many at the bottom unable (people on in work benefits*) or unwilling to contribute their fair share. Trouble is we dont believe radical change is realistic or would work. No wonder we're all miserable.
* if someone working full time can not pay for a basic standard of living without benefits somethings fundamentally broken. Raising the minimum wage is not the answer, reduce the cost of living is.
Raising the minimum wage is not the answer, reduce the cost of living is.
I think it is a bit of both. The first can be done easily enough but the second is pretty much impossible. A lot of money goes on housing for most people and to make that substantially lower it would require a market crash. Not so bad for me as I bought my house 25 years ago but not great for someone who bought one last year and ends up with massive negative equity. Without a market crash, or massive government intervention supply houses for under market price, I am not sure how houses are ever going back to be close to a reasonable price, building a few extra ones is not going to cut it.
It's going to take a lot of building and at least 20 years, might as well start now though. The trouble with continually putting up the minimum wage is the cost of the person will outweigh the economic added value the person gives to their employer. It also makes the payback for automating low skilled jobs ever more attractive. Either way the number of minimum wage jobs will decrease. It's already happening and AI will accelerate the trend.
Energy costs are the other big one and something a government can influence with investment and proper regulation. If we can delink electricity prices from fossil fuel costs energy will come down and that affects every part of the economy.
Alright, with my centrist, voted for Starmer hat on - they've been a ****ing disappointment. Failed to create a vision for people to vote for at the election. Got in on the back of an anti-Tory vote that split with Reform. Have then turned right wing on many of the big high profile issues to foolishly try and keep the perceived threat from Reform at bay, while quietly doing a few more left wing minor things.
They've been clueless, spineless, and next to useless. The fact that they are possibly less toxic than the Tories would have been is scant consolation.
This could not have summed up my own viewpoint any better.
The thing that makes me chuckle is the ability of the likes of Mandelson and McSweeney to cast themselves as electoral gurus. 1997 and 2024 GEs were won by Labour because they were the only alternative to a Tory government that had run out of road and become a farce.
True, Mandelson ran a slightly slick campaign in 97, but the gutter press had utterly turned on the Tories and was splashing their hypocrisy and scandals all over the front pages rather than burying them as they had done previously.
But Starmer had such a mandate for change. He has a huge majority. But his political instincts are terrible. He's chasing lost causes (Reform voters) whilst losing 2-3 times that number of moderates. He's very lucky the Tories have gone too far down the Brexity culture war rabbit hole now to flip back to being so-called one nation.
The problem in 2029 is going to be "not Labour" will be Reform. Why these ****wits at Labour HQ can't see this and know how to counter it, I genuinely don't know.
It's not so much even radical things that are needed just a simple understanding that the way we have wired up the economic system (both fiscal and monetary) has been built on the most frail and illogical understanding that delivers poor outcomes.
Because we've done it for so long - many accept it to be the correct way despite to the results and lack of evidence for many common accepted norms. (I.e Interest rate policy controlling inflation. )
The longer we leave it the harder it becomes to change things because we keep expecting it to get better when it's by design going to deliver badly on public purpose and convince us there is less and less money available - which is simply a lie.
We need to make two things happen:
First select the things to do that have a big multiplier effect and fix the deepest problems. Massive infrastructure plus green investment.
Second understand that financing is the easy part but resourcing is the hard bit. Can we do it?
(The tax system then needs a big fix. But doesn't need immediate attention in terms of priority.)
People also need to understand that capital flight doesn't really exist too - the pounds and assets are always owned by someone. Every seller has a buyer.
However for Labour to even get close to this they would have to have wholesale changing in thinking and spend a whole lot more than 30-40bn a year.
I'd say time is running out politically too - if you're against Reform then you need to be critical of Labour instead of just thinking they are doing a decent job.
It really wasn't hard to see Reform were quickly going to fill the gap - created by the Tories if Labour didn't act. (As long as two years ago.)
Let's see what the June spending review brings.
Probably not much.
I subscribe to the we have limited resources school of thought
The problem is the reference point of what resources we have has been completely reset since 2010. Austerity was utterly devastating and disproportionately so for the areas of the country that were already poor. We can't just say austerity has finished and move on, we need to reverse it in a targeted way that fixes the inequality in the country - that means investing and spending, not just abandoning people because the Tories successfully persuaded everyone we can't afford it.
E.g.
Alright, with my centrist, voted for Starmer hat on - they've been a ****ing disappointment. Failed to create a vision for people to vote for at the election. Got in on the back of an anti-Tory vote that split with Reform. Have then turned right wing on many of the big high profile issues to foolishly try and keep the perceived threat from Reform at bay, while quietly doing a few more left wing minor things.
They've been clueless, spineless, and next to useless. The fact that they are possibly less toxic than the Tories would have been is scant consolation.
This could not have summed up my own viewpoint any better.
The thing that makes me chuckle is the ability of the likes of Mandelson and McSweeney to cast themselves as electoral gurus. 1997 and 2024 GEs were won by Labour because they were the only alternative to a Tory government that had run out of road and become a farce.
True, Mandelson ran a slightly slick campaign in 97, but the gutter press had utterly turned on the Tories and was splashing their hypocrisy and scandals all over the front pages rather than burying them as they had done previously.
But Starmer had such a mandate for change. He has a huge majority. But his political instincts are terrible. He's chasing lost causes (Reform voters) whilst losing 2-3 times that number of moderates. He's very lucky the Tories have gone too far down the Brexity culture war rabbit hole now to flip back to being so-called one nation.
The problem in 2029 is going to be "not Labour" will be Reform. Why these ****wits at Labour HQ can't see this and know how to counter it, I genuinely don't know.
True, it's like he's doing a Cameron by getting spooked and pandering to the far right... and look how far that got him.
Especially with starmers mandate and majority, and the long length of time left in this term... this is the perfect time to be doing good things that can start bearing fruits to show before the next election, and ignoring the farrages.
Just seems like a wasted opportunity to me so far, sure starmers done some stuff well, but there's a whole bunch of stuff he really hasn't, and needlessly IMO.
IFS says tough public spending choices unavoidable
Form BBC
Jesus Christ haven't these type of institutions done enough harm?
It's always the same, and always going to be the same - the people, the regular voter is constantly getting shafted because of these obnoxious ill-informed institutions designed to wreck havoc on an already crumbling society.
Does no one learn? - years now with suppression of the public finances leads to decay and contraction - more of the same will go exactly the same way and then it will be tighten the purse strings again.
It's a vicious downward spiral.
The idea that like the OBR such a body is working in anyone's interest other than a spreadsheet rather than real outcomes is beyond me.
Government finances are not designed to balance because they have the daily capacity to create money. They are not drawing on limited finances. And a deficit is just the opposite side of the positive flow of money into the public sector.
Both the OBR and IFS start with the incorrect model that the government doesn't have total and exclusive access to the BoE's direct monetary current account backed up by the ways and means account.
If you start with the logic that central government financing comes front the private sector (impossible) as they can't create currency then expect seriously confused interpretations of what reality should be like.
Which is exactly why we are where we are.
I subscribe to the we have limited resources school of thought
That's a fact for sure but I'm sure you dont believe that they're currently being distributed, shared and allocated equitably.
Upward Inflation is the indicator that resources are tight.
Taxation is the mechanism adjust that at a fiscal level.
Broad strokes.
No idea where my posts went there.
I'm sure you dont believe that they're currently being distributed, shared and allocated equitably.
I don't as per the rest of one my posts above, but I don't think making people who are currently comfortably off poorer is the right approach although I'd happily see changes to hertance tax as a redistributor.
I also said I've no idea how as a small sovereign nation we can tackle the vastly wealthy.
I don't as per the rest of one my posts above, but I don't think making people who are currently comfortably off poorer is the right approach although I'd happily see changes to hertance tax as a redistributor
The intent is not to make them poorer as such - the intent is to remove their power over accumulation of resources that rest of us could use/society could use.
How many super yachts, big houses and land should they own to reduce what's available to rest of us? That drives inflation and makes it more expensive for everyone else.
That's been skewed in their favour for too long.
Too much wealth also means you drive prices up for everyone else
So it's not about making them less wealthy it's about removing their power to control resources.
Also wealthy people should be grateful for tax - as it gives currency value. Without taxation inflation would be endless and their pounds wound be worth much less.
Besides ideologically everything as been good for people with wealth. Maybe these people owe the rest us for having a party at the expense of everyone else. It's not as if you can't see the evidence of that lack of distribution.
I will end my Sunday afternoon rant with this - finances are apparently tight and yet the BoE continues to pay 4% plus to people with vast sums of money.
Is there not a more regressive use of money than giving people - in a climate where finances are supposed to be tight - more money?
That's government money by the way. Government created money.
It's welfare for the wealthy.
So no finances are not tight. No such black-holes exists here.
There is no reasonable explanation why that is the case.
but I don't think making people who are currently comfortably off poorer is the right approach although I'd happily see changes to hertance tax as a redistributor.
Define 'comfortably off'. One of the problems is that people in the middle who are comfortably off fear they that the left are targeting them rather than the very rich. I've said many times before that people will accept a higher tax economy as long as it is fair. We need to start at the top and work downwards. No one is going to accept more tax if those richer than them are also not paying the same proportion on their incomes and assets. Wealth taxes are a nobrainer in this regard.
One of the problems is that people in the middle who are comfortably off fear they that the left are targeting them rather than the very rich
Sounds like we're on the same wavelength for once, comfortably off means people on what most people here would consider a good income but they don't own multiple houses, yachts, cars etc. People that generally have worked pretty hard to earn that comfortable status.
I'm all for upping inheritance tax, that's a real driver of inequality, and I say that as someone who may inherit a couple of hundred K if I'm lucky. I've worked hard for my salary and what I own, I haven't done anything other than be lucky my parents are home owners to justify any inheritance (although the money might skip me and go direct to getting my kids on the housing ladder).
Trouble is people who are comfortably off usually are the targets for tax increases, the 40% tax threshold really should be a lot higher than it is. They've lost child benefit and WFA (not that I think that's an issue), so experience indicates it's those comfortably off earners who will take the brunt of the rises when politicians wang on about those with the broadest shoulders taking more of the burden. They don't mean the top 2% of earners where they real wealth is hoarded. Someone on the 95th percentile of income is much closer to someone on the average income than they are to the top 1%.
Thing is though people on 60k to 120k are easy targets, often PAYE and no real means of avoiding tax raises, the properly wealthy seem to operate pretty much outside the system and have proved much harder to nail.
Sounds like we're on the same wavelength for once,
Please don't make it 7.
Trouble is people who are comfortably off usually are the targets for tax increases, the 40% tax threshold really should be a lot higher than it is.
Totally agree, and not just for self-interested reasons. I'd start with things like second homes, buy-to-let properties, equalising CGT rates with income tax, and hiked VAT rates on uber-luxuries like yachts and sports cars. I would abolish inheritance tax and replace with wealth taxes. With a wealth tax you can avoid the inheritance tax issue altogether by taxing assets during life rather than at death. For those who can't afford to pay them while living have an option to defer them til death with perhaps a higher rate or surcharge.
Please don't make it 7.
It's was already at least 8.
Soz. You will just have to deal with minority lefties.
I think a lucky tax ought to apply because many people work hard and don't get anywhere and plenty of people are lucky through family - certainly around me. (Joke).
There has to be inheritance tax as it's basically a transfer of unearned assets/income . You can't just keep moving money downwards through the family chain like that and nothing gets taxed back out.
People argue it's money taxed twice but it's no such thing really as when money moves from person to person as they earn it - it's getting taxed each time it changes hands through wages and consumption.
A certain amount of taxation keep currency vales strong and resources in check - it has absolutely nothing to do with stealing, politics of envy etc as many Tories like to say. It's fundamental to the fiat system.
If we had no taxation at all then we'd just have masses of inflation - and your pounds would be worthless.
You fill the swimming pool up and as it starts to overflow you need to drain back out.
Taxation does nothing to government spending power though as Stamer quietly demonstrated this morning over commitment to military spending.
Some good recent discussion about wealth taxes here.
https://pileusmmt.libsyn.com/196-the-problem-with-wealth-taxes-with-steven-hail-part-1
Taxation does nothing to government spending power though as Stamer quietly demonstrated this morning over commitment to military spending.
Except in regards to what you wrote immediately before this. Spending power is hugely reduced if you allow runaway inflation and devaluation, for the government and the rest of us... hence the balance between taxation plans and spending plans (and all other state inputs/outputs) is important.
There has to be inheritance tax as it's basically a transfer of unearned assets/income
The other approach is to tax transfers of wealth with CGT. The UK is unusual in that apart from the 7 year rule there is no tax on gifts to relatives or others.
But it's both... isn't it? Tax transfers whether before or after death. Both very hard to stop the big players finding ways around them though. It's always about updating the tax rules to stop that avoidance... so, so much avoidance. The poor reception to the steps made by this government in removing reducing methods used to "keep it in the family" shows that's a political battle as much as a fiscal process.
Good speech by starmer yesterday, I thought, when he was at the ship yard, he sounded, dare I say it, driven and purposeful.
It's hard to tax wealth as there are so many methods of avoidance. However property is hard to hide away in the Caymen islands so tax that. In France a Property wealth tax has replaced the ISF general wealth tax with a threshold of 1.4 million euros per declaration.
The Danes have a good property tax. If you are a taxpayer there then you pay tax on the value of ALL of your properties, regardless of which country they are in. This means that Danes owning property in the UK already pay a property tax, just not to the UK Exchequer. WTF? 😂
Kent County Council to be first Reform led council to experience DOGE.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpw70j1k540o
Following the full MAGA model. Going to be led by "volunteers"... all from a tech/ IT background.
The second largest party here, he Libdems, are already hinting at the loveliness to come:
Antony Hook, the Liberal Democrat opposition leader on Kent County Council, questioned the need for a team of outside auditors.
He told BBC Radio Kent: "We have at KCC a governance and audit committee, that was due to have its first meeting since the election next week.
"Reform have cancelled it.
"The health and scrutiny committee was meant to meet, Reform have cancelled it. Reform have cancelled most of the committee meetings for this week or next week, without any explanation.
"They haven't even named who their nominees to chair these important committees are.
"If Reform were serious about making the council work well they would be getting their councillors to do this job, not bringing in unnamed anonymous people who haven't been elected."
This is going to be... Interesting. Also happens to be the county I live in. I think we are now at the point where the UK, or a small part of it, needs to experience the full Reform experience as a potential warning to the rest of the UK. As almost all of the councils spending is on statutory requirements, it's fair to say that anyone working for the council could be on very shaky ground as (further) job cuts are about the only "option" left. If... you consider further jobs cuts to the point where entire departments will struggle to even function an "option".
Anyway, I'm excited* to be part of the MAGA UK franchise pilot scheme.
*I'm bloody not. 😉
I saw about that, seems dodgy as heck - seems like council budgets are pretty transparent, so what are their software folks looking for?
"Temu Doge", I saw it described as.
Prior to the local elections, my lad and I had a conversation about how Reform would only start to dip when they failed to deliver. As a Derbyshire resident, we are also expecting a DOGE type experience.
MrsMC is a council social worker, which adds a certain spice to it all. As has been said, most council spending is on statutory requirements, and they already struggle to deal with that.
My fear is that Reform will quickly turn this into a failure of central government to fund local services - which it is, of course. With Reform able to think quicker than Labour on publicity, there's a danger it may strengthen their hand if they play it right and Labour **** it up some more.
-----
Like a cancer, Reform will seep in. Or is it more like a fungus getting into a wounded tree?
As they start to fail at local level they will stir up anger in two connected ways.
1. The statutory stuff alluded to above will contain some stuff around social responsibility to others etc. They will be cast as scroungers profiting from a woke agenda imposed top-down. "How can we succeed with one hand tied behind our back?" they will squeal.
2. They'll also claim that there is an elite conspiracy holding money back from councils and being spent by central government on richer areas or a woke agenda or whatever.
It is so painfully obvious - and enough people will fall for it.
My fear is that Reform will quickly turn this into a failure of central government to fund local services - which it is, of course. With Reform able to think quicker than Labour on publicity, there's a danger it may strengthen their hand if they play it right and Labour **** it up some more
Totally.
It's a fact that this has been the way for a while.
Underfunded councils are no good to anyone - all that's being reported is how they're going bankrupt so it sounds like council error rather than central government grant reduction.
Doom loop.
The government are going to have to shake the money tree to boost council spending to head this off. They also need to shake it to cover the (likely inadequate) defence announcement, and while they are it, might as well go for social care, WFP and Child Benefit Cap, education etc.
It's the perfect chance to scrap the stupid spending rules to do some good, which will be popular, rather than send us further down the hole that only Reform will benefit from.
It'll be interesting to see what comes out of the Old Bailey appearance of the four Ukrainians sent by Putin's Russia to attack British democracy by arsons of a car and two properties linked to Sir. At least there wasn't a dog involved.
It's the perfect chance to scrap the stupid spending rules to do some good, which will be popular, rather than send us further down the hole that only Reform will benefit from.
Right on.
They will have to tackle the moaning irresponsible and inaccurate arguments about spending but they're always going to be attacked over something.
I would sooner they get on with the spending and I will construct the defense of government debt (private sector savings) expansion.😂
I.e government debt was apparently a massive unsustainable issue in 2008,2009,2022,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,22,23,24 and now 25.
The June spending review will be worth looking at (or not.)
Fill the hole or Reform will.
The harder problem is people currently trusting Reform more than Labour.
Kent County Council to be first Reform led council to experience DOGE.
Hope the council ends up in utter disaster and the reform councillors are dragged out into the street and given the beating they deserve.
^^^
Their developer mates are frothing at their respective genitalia to get beauty spots built on (at far bigger profit margin) before it becomes apparent to most of the populace that there are huge brownfield sites that will come into play in 5-10 years time. These being large, now unsustainable, out of town retail/business parks and (patchier but still significant) city centre sites.
Not sure about change of use issues in city centres, but pushing building into brownfield land banks is also part of the changes.
The reforms aren't just about housing though, lots of it is infrastructure, especial energy production and the (delayed) updating of the grid.
The reforms aren't just about housing though
Reforms? Apart from the fact that it sounds positive and good why you are referring to deregulation as "reforms" ?
Labour are not reforming the regulations which they are scrapping, they are literally scrapping them.
When Sir Keir Starmer spoke to Donald Trump on his very first telephone call after Trump's inauguration he proudly talked of his commitment to deregulation, no mention of "reforms"
A Downing Street spokesman said the two men "discussed trade and the economy, with the prime minister setting out how we are deregulating to boost growth".
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6270py64pzo
So the question arises......why are there these regulations? Regulations which survived 14 years of Tory governments.
Apart from the fact that it sounds positive and good why you are referring to deregulation as "reforms" ?
Why? Because there are new regulations coming in (and existing ones being made more stringent) as well as many being removed entirely. I’d regard them all as reforms when considered together, but then I’m not cherrying picking to make a point (either to POTUS, to make good story in a newspaper, or to readers of this thread).
Regulations which survived 14 years of Tory governments.
The relaxation of some of those regulations we should be very concerned about. Others were about placating NIMBYs in key areas of the country that Tory governments wanted to keep on side. And to protect house prices. Some have been left in place simply because speedy expansion of renewal energy generation and the distribution network needed to support it fell out of favor with past governments (despite many ministers being initially keen).
Cherry picking?
So this Guardian article is cherry picking?
Oh how some will clutch onto straws in a desperate attempt to defend the indefensible 😯
Yes, they have cheery picked, and rightly so, they want a narrative that’s worth reading. It’s a good article.
Apologies if this seems patronising but the point of 'cherry picking' above is the result of confusion from some below par posts.
Obviously the Guardian has cherry picked ten jewels in the crown to make the article punchier. So it is easy to argue and refute cherry picking whilst talking at slightly crossed purposes. More to the point is this connected article which puts the figure at 5,000 English nature sites being put under risk as a result of the planning deregulation.
Among them Peak District moors, Surrey heaths, Forest of Bowland and New Forest.
That would have been considered radical Tory profiteering had it been mooted in 2019, say.
That would have been considered radical Tory profiteering had it been mooted in 2019, say.
Haven't right-wingers always been at war against red tape which they claim puts environmental issues first?
He hinted that time-consuming environmental surveys, and similar red tape, could be streamlined, saying: ‘Time is money, and the newt-counting delays in our system are a massive drag on the productivity and the prosperity of this country.’
PM acknowledged that the planned increase in construction would involve the loss of some green field sites.
Stop the newt-counting !
The last attempt was Kwasi Kwarteng in his infamous mini budget :
Ministers want to “turbocharge” house building by cutting red tape in a network of new Investment Zones while also limiting the ability for planning decisions to be overturned by the courts.
Obviously back then the Tories had to contend with a Labour opposition, Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have no such problems.
Good Gob, the only reason for being in the Labour Party now is a cheap pint and a game of cribbage, if you're lucky. When Starmer expressed his admiration for Thatcher, he meant it. Does he really expect LP members to go round and sell all this on the knocker, 'But this is socialist austerity, National Parks are a waste of space, property developers will solve the housing crisis like they never did before, Kwarteng was right on red-tape, child poverty is character forming, support genocide, growth will come from spending less, the Ruskies are coming!' and get votes?
Sir Keir Starmer doesn't really need Labour Party members to do that, he can communicate directly with voters via the pages of the Daily Telegraph, a newspaper which undoubtedly shares his vision of how to make Britain great again :
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/authors/k/ka-ke/keir-starmer/
Besides, no one knows how many Labour Party members there will be left by the time of the next general election in 2029
LabourList revealed in February the party had lost more than one in ten members since the general election with the party losing the equivalent of one member every ten minutes between December and February.
https://labourlist.org/2025/05/labour-membership-numbers-members-how-many-political-party/
How many ten minutes between now and the next general election?
Labour have made an absolute hash of this WFA. Including the u-turn which is still all over the place.
All this noise and bad press for a paltry 1.4bn. It simply wasn't worth it. (And no they don't save that at all.)
This is an extremely incompetent government - god help us if they had to deal with something to a magnitude of Covid.
It feels like at this point they're not coming back from their first year now - they're just too hopeless in their current guise.
Making poor economic micro-choices early on absolutely sank them - driven by a misguided set of economic rules - has been a dreadful plan.
Labour have made an absolute hash of this WFA. Including the u-turn which is still all over the place.
Yes they have. Absolutely.
All this noise and bad press for a paltry 1.4bn.
Particularly when you think of the multi billions we could get simply by rejoining the EU Single Market and Customs Union.
Stop the newt-counting !
Bloody floating voters anyway.
How do you square being massively pro-immigration with being against doing anything to build the infrastructure and housing required to facilitate them?
Because when the working class raise concerns about change being foisted upon their communities, they're dismissed as thick racists. But as soon as change threatens the peaceful serenity of the leafy suburbs, suddenly it's ok to be concerned?
Because when the working class raise concerns about change being foisted upon their communities, they're dismissed as thick racists.
The racist part is thinking that immigration makes communities worse.
simply by rejoining the EU Single Market and Customs Union
There's no place for 'simply' in that scenario.
The racist part is thinking that immigration makes communities worse.
Right, so there's no reason for anybody to be concerned about the impact of all this new infrastructure and house building because it will have either a neutral or positive impact? Then why are all the nimbys in the leafy suburbs always complaining so much about it?
Some have been left in place simply because speedy expansion of renewal energy generation and the distribution network needed to support it fell out of favor with past governments (despite many ministers being initially keen).
Which is a good thing probably. Labour look like they're going headlong into a rush to put up as many windfarms as possible in ecologically sensitive areas which will have no net gain on carbon emissions whilst pissing off most of the locals who will see their countryside trashed for no direct benefit. And they wonder why they're suffering in the polls! 🙄
Mel Stride this morning:
"The fact is, for a large swathe of the population, our economy simply has not been working for them for some considerable time.
Incomes have stagnated. Many feel that the system only works for the benefit of others, for large corporations or people from other countries, but not for them and their families.
We must accept that for too long, governments of both colours have failed to free us from this malaise."
Is it just me, or is that statement something that Jeremy Corbyn or John McDonnell could have said a few years ago? It's quite astonishing that the challenge from Reform appears to be pulling both labour and the tories leftwards on economic issues. That's not something I would have predicted a year ago.
'immigration makes communities worse' ...I've just got back from a walk with two foreigners, an Irishman and a Romanian, they've made the place much worse by being dentists AND doing NHS work.
I was pleased to see that Wilders has flounced, hopefully we'll be seeing the same with these rank amateur Reform councillors finding it too tedious, confusing and complex.
There's no place for 'simply' in that scenario
Well it's only going to get worse the longer we leave it, so might as well get cracking now.
I did have a bit of light relief listening to the news just now, though.
Not just Mel Stride, but Sir Mel Stride, no less.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
For what? Services to mediocrity? Services to brown-nosing and generally staying off the radar?
Whoops there goes another chairman
Whoops there goes another chairman
Muslim window dressing suddenly realises he's in with a gang of racists?
Either he's very stupid. Or he's been on the make...
And quite stupid.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Pig's ear collar on a single breasted jacket is always a sign of poor judgement.
This is more interesting than Yusuf going, to me anyway.
The tech entrepreneur being brought in to lead DOGE UK has also quit with him. From the Beeb:
Tech entrepreneur Nathaniel Fried, who was brought in to lead the Doge unit, said he was stepping down with Yusuf.
"I have a huge amount of respect for the work that the councils are doing to save tax payer money, and reduce wastage," he wrote on X.
But he added that Yusuf "got me in and I believe it is appropriate for me to leave with him".
So our Poundland Musk has quit at almost exactly the same time as Musk has gone rogue too. Lovely.
Bit inconvenient for Reform led Kent County Council... They've cancelled all budgetary meetings till DOGE have "audited" it's spending! Oops.
I can't make out whether that compliment Fried makes us actually complimenting councils and basically acknowledging there is no money being wasted, or not?
Well the Labour win in Hamilton was unexpected - with Reform third. Polls has SNP, Reform and Labour third.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgqzdl8lxyo
This contest turned out to be a tight three-horse race.
Reform were just 3% behind the SNP, I think it is probably fair to say that Reform are now an established major political force in Scotland as they are in the rest of the UK, something which some people doubted would happen.
I think it is probably fair to say that Reform are now an established major political force in Scotland as they are in the rest of the UK
But I thought Reform didn't have any support in Scotland because they were an England-only party? 😉
On another subject, anyone see Badenoch's weird speech on asylum policy this morning? I'm continually amazed the tory party thought she was the best candidate to lead them. Never in my life have I seen such a cold, impersonable and unempathetic politician. She makes Thatcher look like Mother Theresa.
I do find it genuinely frightening all this talk of removal of us from the ECHR - that is proper dystopian policy making.
Looks like most of the Reform vote came from the SNP as well, not from Labour. Oh well it's OK because Scottish voters are different from English voters and aren't at all bigoted or inward looking.
Looks like most of the Reform vote came from the SNP as well, not from Labour. Oh well it's OK because Scottish voters are different from English voters and aren't at all bigoted or inward looking.
Only the rangers fans/unionists, 😉
I do find it genuinely frightening all this talk of removal of us from the ECHR - that is proper dystopian policy making.
yep..
Trouble is first it was the E.U holding us back then it’s the ECHR, it’s always very simplistic solution, apart from actually having a system in place to process immigration applications in a timely manor and having a legal route that doesn’t need people to turn up in dinghy’s on the news every day(which IMHO makes more sense).
I’m not sure attempting to remove you from the ECHR is malice or incompetence 🙂
Duplicate post - self quoting 🙂
Besides hoping to buy (or not hemorrhage) votes, what's the point of a £35k annual income threshold to now receive Winter Fuel Allowance again, in biggest u-turn of the first year?
Haven't got a clue what the point is but people with annual income of £35k who very likely own their house can certainly afford to pay for energy use over winter without the need for benefits.
The £35,000 seems pointless to me, as it catches nearly everyone. Should have either had a lower threshold, or been universal and avoided the admin. Plenty of other ways to get the balance right for those on over £35,000 with small changes to existing taxation.
I'm a heartless bar steward, but I don't see the problem in giving all UK pensioners a tax code £200/300 (depending on if they are over 80) above the personal allowance of £12570 that is freezing in hell until around 2029 iirc.
You know what it reminds of? The dumb individual threshold for families receiving child benefit. Either put a real means test in place, or keep it universal and tax those earning more more. Pointless extra admin for benefits, when changes to tax rules could do the job of redistribution and balancing hand outs for the rich.
EDIT: Scared of complaints about “tax rises for working families”, and “tax rises for pensioners”… just having kids or having retired shouldn’t be political armor against paying back more if you’re a high earner or have a high wealth value.
Definitely tax for removing extra pounds if necessary.
That mechanism already exists.
Means testing is admin heavy, complex and causes issues.
Such a botch of ideas and execution.
General observation - Labour are gradually realising they've absolutely got to spend now. Tomorrow will be interesting.
No more talk of market spooking shite please. Get away from Centrist exposition of Truss. It's a self harm and not comparable to anything approaching reality of where we are.
Get on with job.
(Employment numbers looking a bit shaky.)
General observation - Labour are gradually realising they've absolutely got to spend now. Tomorrow will be interesting.
No more talk of market spooking shite please. Get away from Centrist exposition of Truss. It's a self harm and not comparable to anything approaching reality of where we are.
Get on with job.
(Employment numbers looking a bit shaky.)
Got to giggle at the idea that Labour can now 'afford" the WFA because they've fixed the economy. Lmfao. Don't be ridiculous you're just running a slightly bigger deficit than the Tories.
They don't help themselves.
The harder problem is people currently trusting Reform more than Labour.
The harder problem is getting people to vote who are thoroughly disengaged by this political circus.
A few hundred thousand people turning out in swing states in the US would have changed the next four years; this also applies to the UK
The harder problem is people currently trusting Reform more than Labour.
The harder problem is getting people to vote who are thoroughly disengaged by this political circus.
A few hundred thousand people turning out in swing states in the US would have changed the next four years; this also applies to the UK
Er, you do remember that British voters gave the Labour Party a landslide victory less than a year ago, don't you? Never mind about what happened in swing states in the United States.