Forum menu
"the survey was undertaken in September and October"
How dare labour not have substantially improved the NHS in the several working days between when they took power and when that survey was undertaken.
Yeah it's almost as if waiting 3.5 months to do a lame budget and go on about a 22bn black-hole wasn't a good plan for a desperate country.
Your continued gloating about the ****ed up state of the government really doesn't help anyone.
But that would apply to muiltiple heavy threads of the previous Tory leaders too - and it didn't 'cos everyone joins in on those.
Also - it's not really about gloating it's the critical situation of where Starmer has put the country. It needs pushback until them polls get through to his stupid head. (I don't live in hope.)
Most of us simply realised to get improvements in people's lives you have to do radical-ish things. Then they might vote for you.
Your continued gloating about the ****ed up state of the government really doesn't help anyone.
But that would apply to muiltiple heavy threads of the previous Tory leaders too - and it didn't 'cos everyone joins in on those.
The gloating about the shit Tories was equally unhelpful, but it wasn't aimed at people on this forum or validating the superior position of other posters.
Most of us simply realised to get improvements in people's lives you have to do radical-ish things. Then they might vote for you.
You've added that since I replied, but yes, that was the hope I had when Starmer was made leader and that's the betrayal I'm angry about.
"the survey was undertaken in September and October"
How dare labour not have substantially improved the NHS in the several working days between when they took power and when that survey was undertaken.
Yeah it's almost as if waiting 3.5 months to do a lame budget and go on about a 22bn black-hole wasn't a good plan for a desperate country.
Yeah they should have fixed the NHS and delivered the budget within hours, not days. I'm also disappointed that they didn't finish HS2, Hinckley Point C and build 3 million houses by Christmas - ample time. We're all being mature grown ups here aren't we.
Speak for yourself on the desperation front though.
Wildlife trust has also been commenting on Labour going full tory ranting about tedious concerns getting in the way of ...
It's not really going full Tory though, Starmer doesn't like the Tories, at least he claims not to.
It's more going full Trump, someone who only a few days ago he claimed to like and respect :
And Trump would certainly approve of an attack on environmentalists for being part of the anti-growth coalition, even if it isn't true.
It's kind of ironic that the lack of posts in this thread from the STW centrist contingent is a good indicator of the success of this govt. I guess if you're a Labour supporter there's nothing much to talk about.
The political situation in the UK seems so hopeless, and the misnamed Labour government such an embarrassment to them, that they would much rather focus on United States politics and ridicule American voters for being so stupid.
You will find them all frantically posting on the Donald Trump thread which is easily the most active political thread on here.
For them UK politics, which obviously affects millions of people in the UK, is best swept under the carpet and not discussed in too much detail.
It's a "nothing to see here" situation because the grown ups are allegedly back in charge, but "haha look at American politics, aren't American voters stupid?"
Despite this "pledge" from Starmer :
This is the latest consequence of this Labour government's austerity programme :
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyq2prpy85o
Sir Sadiq added: “The previous government chronically underfunded the Met, making cuts to policing in London that were in real terms equivalent to more than £1.1 billion.
“This has left the Met in an extremely difficult financial situation.
Someone should perhaps gently remind Sadiq Khan that after 14 long years we now have a so-called Labour government.
A couple of days ago when he was proudly announcing the deportation of illegal immigrants Starmer said on twitter. :
No gimmicks. Just hard graft. This government is delivering the security you deserve.
I am fairly sure that most Londoners don't feel insecure because of Boat People, crime is probably a bigger cause of concern. So no Starmer, you don't get at all, and yes, your racist dog-whistling is nothing more than just a gimmick.
Vote Tory or Labour, get Tory.
but it wasn't aimed at people on this forum or validating the superior position of other posters.
Really? You missed all the posts sneering and announcing how much better the Starmer was doing than that nasty lefty? You dont recall the self proclaimed grown ups in the room lecturing everyone that if they dont vote for the glorious leader then they are voting tory? Or a bit further back when every ****ing page on the Corbyn thread had binners hurling abuse at the "sixth formers" and gloating about every bad result.
We only need to look at the use of "grown up", "pragmatic" and so on to show the superiority complex of the centrists. Its quite telling that you ignore all that.
Even on this page we have roli case going for the "wahhhhhhhh" lets try and make your position sound childish and then announce victory.
How dare labour not have substantially improved the NHS
Ah yes the NHS where the experts all agree one of the major problems facing it is the lack of a joined up social care system resulting in people being in hospital unnecessarily because they cant be released.
Now remind me when the social care review is starting?
For them UK politics, which obviously affects millions of people in the UK, is best swept under the carpet and not discussed in too much detail.
Absolutely - "Trump slop." A handy political diversion to throw shit away from serious domestic failure right on the doorstep.
They're all at it. James O'Brien now renamed the Musk and Trump show. Look how terrible things are stateside. Don't be worrying about the Labour delivered poverty and decay. Starmer is apparently being smart over Tariffs, apparently by NOT taking a position.
It's not that he's being smart - he hasn't got a ****ing clue. "Nothing ruled out." What does it even mean? It's exactly the same as logic as Simon Foster - in 'In the Loop' "I don't think War is unforseable."
James O'Brien now renamed the Musk and Trump show.
Not listened this week, but last week his show was almost entirely about the likely negative effects of the benefits changes. Much like here. Oh, More or Less was a good one again this morning by the way… on the mess of the government reacting quickly to keep to fiscal rules rather than looking and planning long term. You’ll probably like it.
In the media, and in real life, people are discussing what they think are the mistakes made by, and problems faced by, this government.
As for the people in this thread complaining why other people aren’t posting here. You are the reason. It’s not about avoiding the issues in the wider world, it’s about this thread itself. People have often advised me not to join in, but I’m too stubborn to listen. But even I’m only checking in occasionally, it’s really not worth anyone’s time engaging here regularly.
As for the people in this thread complaining why other people aren’t posting here
Eh? Who is "complaining"...... surely it is just an observation? Starmer supporters who until recently had so much to say have suddenly gone quiet.
Which is hardly surprising really. After years of defending Starmer's endless embracing of Tory policies the last couple of weeks has all got a bit too much, even for them. So they are now focusing on American politics instead.
You are the reason. It’s not about avoiding the issues in the wider world, it’s about this thread itself.
Nah, maybe try to kid yourself that it's all just about "this thread", but the the only thing that has actually changed is that Starmer is taking Labour into new territory were Labour has never been before - indisputably Tory territory, eg crippling disabled people and targeting asylum seekers.
The idea that it is lefties critical of Starmer which has scared binners off this thread, for example, is clearly absurd...... he really isn't that much of a snowflake! 😅
The reason binners wants to talk only about American politics now instead of British politics is because the Starmer-Reeves double act has become such an indefensible embarrassment.
You are the reason. It’s not about avoiding the issues in the wider world, it’s about this thread itself
This point is so tired and lame.
Nothing is stopping anyone ignoring a post that they don't agree with and simply typing a post detailing why Starmer is doing such a great job - in total freedom!
Then - you don't have to check that your comment has been challenged. You can come back another day and post another comment that reflects your views and some will read it and engage and some won't.
The reason people stop posting is actually it's getting increasingly difficult to make a case for Starmer and Labour doing a great job.
https://www.ft.com/content/2433f7c8-3f33-4170-bdd1-dd7813729968
"It was not meant to be like this. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility was established to ensure UK governments fixed their finances instead of fiddling the figures. But 15 years on, we are witnessing a terrible spectacle of the fiscal watchdog’s tail wagging the government dog."
"It is unacceptable that public services and taxes are set not in the ballot box, but by unelected and barely accountable officials in a small office above the Ministry of Justice. The OBR is not even an expert in its most important judgment, assessing the UK’s likely productivity growth. As David Miles, one of the three officials in charge, openly admitted last year, this assumption is “no more than an educated guess, and maybe not even terribly educated/”
Get rid. Not fit for any purpose. Crippling the UK with guesswork.
https://www.ft.com/content/2433f7c8-3f33-4170-bdd1-dd7813729968
"It was not meant to be like this. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility was established to ensure UK governments fixed their finances instead of fiddling the figures. But 15 years on, we are witnessing a terrible spectacle of the fiscal watchdog’s tail wagging the government dog."
"It is unacceptable that public services and taxes are set not in the ballot box, but by unelected and barely accountable officials in a small office above the Ministry of Justice. The OBR is not even an expert in its most important judgment, assessing the UK’s likely productivity growth. As David Miles, one of the three officials in charge, openly admitted last year, this assumption is “no more than an educated guess, and maybe not even terribly educated/”
Get rid. Not fit for any purpose. Crippling the UK with guesswork.
This point is so tired and lame.
Nothing is stopping anyone ignoring a post that they don't agree with and simply typing a post detailing why Starmer is doing such a great job - in total freedom!
I was going to write a response but the forum didn’t want to post it… I think Starmer is doing a better Job than STW’s IT team! I’ve not heard anyone use “lame” like that since I was at school. I’m not SKS no 1 fan, but I think he’s handling a lot of big issues better than I would expect any of the other candidates for PM to have done.
I think starmer is attempting a balancing act and is just about succeeding. I am not sure its the right policy but so far he is doing it well
I was going to write a response but the forum didn’t want to post it… I think Starmer is doing a better Job than STW’s IT team! I’ve not heard anyone use “lame” like that since I was at school. I’m not SKS no 1 fan, but I think he’s handling a lot of big issues better than I would expect any of the other candidates for PM to have done.
Every day's a school day.
Handling issues is not the same as having a plan for making society better.
I'd say at best he's impotent if not decidedly clueless on domestic affairs. His whole strategy is to let the 3rd party make all the decisions whilst he sits back and pretends everything's on the table.
That said debating personality and competence is a side show compared to fixing stuff. That's what got us here.
Material conditions before statesmanship i'd say if you want to win the next election.
(Pretty much as expected.)
I was going to write a response but the forum didn’t want to post it… I think Starmer is doing a better Job than STW’s IT team! I’ve not heard anyone use “lame” like that since I was at school. I’m not SKS no 1 fan, but I think he’s handling a lot of big issues better than I would expect any of the other candidates for PM to have done.
Every day's a school day.
Handling issues is not the same as having a plan for making society better.
I'd say at best he's impotent if not decidedly clueless on domestic affairs. His whole strategy is to let the 3rd party make all the decisions whilst he sits back and pretends everything's on the table.
That said debating personality and competence is a side show compared to fixing stuff. That's what got us here.
Material conditions before statesmanship i'd say if you want to win the next election.
(Pretty much as expected.)
The current government seems determined to be tougher on the asylum seekers than the last Tory government. I wonder how Suella Braverman feels?
The Home Office has previously generally accepted protection claims from women like Mina who could be targeted by the Taliban because of their high-profile work empowering women and who have provided evidence of their work with western government projects.
But in the most recent data for the last three months of 2024 immigration statistics show 26 Afghan women had their claims rejected. Overall 2,000 Afghan asylum seekers had their claims refused, an increase from 48 in the same quarter of 2023. The grant rate for Afghan cases has gone down from 98.5% in the last quarter of 2023 to 36% in the last quarter of 2024.
I'm genuinely intrigued by this.
Fingers crossed we get the right moves.
We absolutely need something extensive asap.
I'm genuinely intrigued by this.
Fingers crossed we get the right moves.
We absolutely need something extensive asap. I still think the prevailing orthodoxy will be wrong but I live in hope.
I'm guessing the fiscal rules will change, it's the perfect excuse for them to get out of any mess and blame the Trumpton.
Trump is an easy hate. Politics, obviously not uniquely to the UK, is a very complex topic and most regular people probably have only very superifical political understanding. I for one fall into that camp and come to these threads in part to learn bite sized tidbits about politics today. Sometimes seems quite foolish however 😉 I definitely have nothing to contribute beyond lamenting the unfairness of the system.
I'm guessing the fiscal rules will change, it's the perfect excuse for them to get out of any mess and blame the Trumpton.
It's the perfect opportunity. I am not hopeful though.
Surely they wouldn't be idiotic enough to put taxes up based on this?
Surely the only option is to spend more
Surely they wouldn't be idiotic enough to put taxes up based on this?
Agreed mechanically that would be stupid. That would just take more money out of the economy at this point.
Let's see. Taxes come later to mop up any inflation from substantial spending.
But it's make or break time in terms of the government. Early enough to still do something and they have an excuse to break the diabolical fiscal rules.
If they've got any brains they will lower the standard rate of tax and/or vat too.
They do have a problem though - as the BoE are still effectively tightening. It is preposterous that a democratically elected government has some of its firepower governed by an institution that doesn't work with them or in the interests of most of us. Even Trump can't make Powell budge currently. They do have authority though in all cases but the government has to be strong enough to remind them who's in charge. Truss was weak on this amidst a complex mess of non-communication between the government and BoE.
If they want growth now those interest rates have to come down and the Chancellor should instruct Bailey to crack on.
This is the current Labour party though so I suspect something awful will rear its head rather than pragmatic.
It wasn't suppose to be like that surely..... the OBR criticising Starmer-Reeves??
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjdx3g85k8go
Debbie Abrahams, chairwoman of the work and pensions committee, noted that an impact assessment produced by the government said the changes could push 250,000 people into poverty, while the Joseph Rowntree Foundation charity put the figure at 400,000.
The Labour MP said children who grow up in poverty are more likely to struggle to find work or employment later in life and asked the prime minister how he would ensure his approach addressed the root causes of poverty "rather than add to them".
This must be the first "Labour" government in history to increase poverty rather than reduce it. And not just increasing poverty as the result policies whose consequences were unpredictable, but policies whose consequences were clearly predictable.
And let's be clear about what "increases" in poverty means, it means greater levels of poverty than existed under the last, and very right-wing, Tory government.
The prime minister hopes his plans, which include making it harder to claim disability payments, will save money and help get more people into work
That ^^ reminds of a white South African farmer being interviewed by a British TV crew many years ago during the apartheid era, when he was asked to justify the extremely poor wages his was paying his workers his answer was to claim that if he paid the "black man" too much money they would lose the incentive to work.
I never thought that I would hear someone claiming to be a Labour prime minister make the same "you've got to keep them poor to make them work hard" argument.
They could have got on their bikes and found work, if only they either able bodied enough to use one or could afford to buy.
Let's hope all that great stuff coming in a few years time that the few remaining Labour supporters tell us about is worth it eh.
Lmfao at the OBR and Starmer.
He put all his faith in this shambles of an arms-length government austerity generator
I've been watching him on and off this week - he doesn't have a clue about economics - (rumour has it he was given a quick heads up by Ed on macro - just before he came to 'power'). He keeps saying all options are on the table. Are all options on the table? Are your fiscal rules Iron-clad? Surely a pragmatist wouldn't be calling things Iron-clad if they're no longer fit for purpose? (Not that they ever were.)
Time to admit Starmer and Reeves are out of their depth and just drifting press conferences with vague speak about economic policies is not a 'plan'. To claim times have changed - not really because times are always changing and everyone had a good idea that Trump would come to power and mess with stuff.
Just like the pandemic - it's up to the government to put stuff in place to protect the country. This is not happening with Labour they are simply prodding at the economic landscape with all the wrong tools.
P.S Is Nationalisation of British Steel now a thing? Will Starmer supporters get in line with this one? Which way wiill the wind blow on this one today? How does a government with a black-hole of 22bn 😉 offer the S****horpe plant 500m? (which I don't agree with) - either Nationalise or bin it off.
Living between market forces and state tinkering is the worst place to be, especially when market forces don't serve the public.
That is a misleading headline and an article which contradicts itself. If Reform UK were indeed to win as suggested 180 seats, and both Labour and the Tories 165 seats each, it would mean that no political party had won the general election.
Winning a general election is defined as having a majority of at least 1, not being the largest party. In fact the article even goes on to explain that the Labour Party could remain in power despite Reform being the largest party in the House of Commons. You don't "win" a general election if you are a party of opposition.
Anyway pedants aside the article raises an interesting question :
"The test for all three main parties will be which one can prove to the electorate that they can really deliver the change the public so desperately wants to see.”
Labour waited 14 long years and now as the party of government they are without doubt in pole position to show voters that they can deliver the changes that they so desperately wants to see.
It's a huge advantage over Reform and the Tories, what could go wrong?
Edit : Interestingly the link uses a completely different headline to the headline used for the article.
If Reform UK were indeed to win as suggested 180 seats, and both Labour and the Tories 165 seats each, it would mean that no political party had won the general election.
180 + 165 = 345 majority. They are so close they may as well just form a coalition if it means they are in power rather than Labour.
But then I predicted that a few months back and someone even proposed a bet that it would not happen but they then chickened out.
God knows what they will get up to when in power, can't be worse than Trump, can it?
Runcorn is going to be huge in this context.
If Reform win outright then I think that scenario above is highly likely. It makes a merger look like the only option to the Tories. Typically for Tories they'll believe their history will allow them to rule the roost whilst Farage will simply want to absorb them then carry on with his current direction. If the Tories split - so what? Any real social conscience was purged by Johnson. The majority will look at their job prospects and think being a Reform MP is their best bet. A few will step down. A couple might join Libdem or Labour.
The people of Runcorn need to decide whether they want to go down in history as the ones who opened the floodgates to a far right UK government or the ones who put a check on Farage and his nasty, bigoted following.
It would have been a lot easier if the incumbent could have kept his temper, though.
And in the more immediate term it is the acid test of Starmer's policy of appeasing a certain demographic in the Red Wall.
Good christ three absolute failures of right-wing parties to choose from.
Wonder how we got here? (It's pretty obvious.)
Leaders are hard to get shut of even when they're total crap like Starmer but a second wind of removing Starmer, Reeves and Streeting would be an interesting scenario. Oh and Cooper - and the totally unhinged Kendall at the very least.
Basically all the loons that are pushing an incredibly stupid agenda from the Labour right.
In fact Labour need to be decimated in their current form for anything to remotely get better.
Runcorn is going to be huge in this context.
If it does go that way - then watching Starmer trot out all his usual crap about 'Change" and 'mission-led' will be absolute proof the man shouldn't be let near a bouncy-castle let alone a country.
But, he will just spend a few more quid on Ukraine and make some more cuts towards the vulnerable - believing that's the way.
Reeves must be pushing for an interest rate cut and lower inflation by now? So she can claim it's her doing.
As an aside there's a shed load of M2 liquidity forthcoming - that will probably zap the dollar against the pound (all of Trump's mishandling). Reeves will probably pretend she landed that one.
Only China have had a plan in all of this by investing massively in their own infrastructure (using their own currency} to survive the Trumpiness.
We should be doing that too. But I reckon Starmer will hanging on for a Tory type USA trade deal .
I just had the (mis)fortune to hear Badenoch's dribblings prior to the locals.
Apparently she has no firm, costed policy around welfare because that's not a local government issue. Then, when asked what she does have an actual policy on she craps on about gender recognition. Forgive me, but how is that a local government issue when welfare isn't?
What a total ****ing muppet. I can only assume she's just treading water until they either get rid of her or merge with Reform (or both). The Tories at least used to be able to present a front that wasn't instantly ridiculous to the untrained eye. Now they're not even trying, as far as I can see.
A Home Office source said: "Not only are we deporting foreign criminals at a rate never seen when Chris Philp and Robert Jenrick were in charge at the Home Office, but we will also be publishing far more information about that cohort of offenders than the Tories ever did."
The source added that ministers wanted "to ensure the public is kept better informed about the number of foreign criminals awaiting deportation, where they are from and the crimes they have committed".
Can someone please explain of what possible use that information is to the public?
How does knowing the nationality of criminals awaiting deportation in any way enhance my life, beyond giving me a topic for discussion the next time I am a passenger in a black cab?
This current tory government really is determined to stoke the flames of bigotry in an attempt to distract attention away from their failures to deliver meaningful change.
Can someone please explain of what possible use that information is to the public?
It plays very well to the part of the electorate (both between and within individuals) that is xenophobic and obsessed with immigration. The part that was revealed most markedly by the Leave vote in 2016 and has been front and centre ever since.
Can someone please explain of what possible use that information is to the public?
So that everyone can see that Starmers labour are happy to exploit racism to distract from their many failings to actually fix anything. He really is the same as Boris Johnson, a vacant ****wit who was only interested in achieving power and no plan of what to do once in the role, reliant on his spin doctor, punching down instead of addressing the causes of inequality, eliminating the "broad church" within their respective parties, kowtowing to fascists etc etc etc.
“If they still think we’re going to scrap the cap then they’re listening to the wrong people. We’re simply not going to find a way to do that. The cap is popular with key voters, who see it as a matter of fairness,” one source said.
on the two child cap
Once again pandering to a few videos voters and ignoring the fact this policy is hated by most of its mps, lots of voters and will lose them many seats
it's indefensible
Where is that quote from? I was expecting them to just keep kicking it into the long grass, I am surprised about such a specific admission about their "performative cruelty".
Agree with most of this (apart from the focus on immigration). It's about time Labour reflected the views of the working class rather than preaching to them about subjects they have little interest in. Will be interesting to see if Starmer adopts any of it given he comes from the blue labour side of the party. He'll probably do the anti-immigration stuff and none of the economic stuff and Reform will win the next election as a result. As I've always said, people don't care about immigration if they've got money in their pockets and decent public services.
https://twitter.com/blue_labour/status/1914591256925077747