Forum menu
their job isn’t really to tell you what to do it’s to present the options so you can decide.
Again a simplistic view but even if we run with it. This doesnt work well with your Starmer the lawyer does it?
that’s the narrative that’s being told, we don’t know if that’s being spun by pro-Starmer people, pro-Ed people, pro-Trump people who want Starmer out the way, pro-Israel people, or just anti-Labour people who want to show the party is in chaos.
Correct. So I am not sure why you are making such a big thing about it. Of course someone has an agenda in pushing it but by all accounts Ed Milliband would be the least likely to push it. He tried the top job and hated it.
except that if you want to say you were right and were overruled, as PM, that makes you look weak.
Depends on how you spin it. If you use "overruled" then clearly wrong but better options like "persuaded", "cabinet discussion" and so forth.
Back in the most argumentative times (me included) I wrote about how impressed i was by the work and professionalism of small g government (the civil servants, advisers, expert groups and junior ministers) and how badly they were being let down by the optics of the big G. Not a lot's changed there TBH.
And about how making investment decisions is really hard, weighting off spending on CNI vs whether two child caps or winter fuel payments for rich pensioners are a priority. I wrote about having some access into how this was being done, but could not say what - and was semi-accused of being a Mitty for it.
Anyway - it finally got announced.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cutting-edge-timing-technology-to-protect-vital-services
One bewildering stat from the announcement on our total reliance on consolidated and accurate time "An outage impacting the UK could cost our economy some £1.4 billion in the space of just 24 hours"
I still don't know how you prioritise one vs the other, other than to say that they are hard decisions.
If you believe that spending has to be a decision based on the choice of how much you should spend rather than how good is it for public purpose etc - then you are drowning in the economic misinformation of how government finances itself.
Is it worth doing? Can we resource it? - are the real questions.
I mean you've just watched interest income be spent for several years without one issue of where the money is coming from.
No one questions interest income - just money that is being spent for public purpose. It comes from the same place.
Im gonna say that so far the government have navigated this very well, leaks about whether this was starmer or ed are
a) not always to be trusted
b) misses the point- a PM is as good as the ministers/ civil servants they appoint to advise them (starmers track record on this not the best- you can bet McSweeney wouldve been all about helping trump)
Not getting involved in the initial strikes was 100% the right thing to do, as evil as the iranian regime are, starting a war like this with absolutely no plan, legal justification, debate or consensus anywhere was insanity
Hes also walked a fine line of defending regional allies- shooting down drones and only allowing minimal use of UK airbases by America- even if that has pissed off trump
Lets be honest pissing off Trump IS a dangerous thing to do, he's a vile and petty manchild, support for ukraine, tariffs, support for the far right- theres a lot of ways he can hurt the UK, so Im impresed that Starmer finally has found some testicular fortitude on this
Ironically if Starmer was more like Trump I am pretty sure that he would've spat out his dummy & stopped the USA using our bases full stop following his comments at the weekend.
I found this an interesting additional angle on the evergreen topic of “why do the newspapers side with a right wing USA POTUS against a UK PM”…
I found this an interesting additional ang
I heard that on the podcast yesterday. Whilst not convinced I think it does have something going for it.
Nothing really new here, but the Palantir story is one that should never be ignored, IMHO the government shouldn’t be working with them (even if they were offering their help for free):
Well, at least this week the POTUS is reminding us (by mocking us) that we have government by cabinet, that is accountable to parliament… rather than whatever the hell the US has right now.
rather than whatever the hell the US has right now.
The nearest I can think of is some reality TV show. A really sh*t one.
rather than whatever the hell the US has right now.
Chris Mason rubbing his thighs excitedly that someone else might bring down Starmer.
I suspect most of the party and a sizeable chunk of the electorate think she has a point.
BBC News - Angela Rayner's explosive speech reignites leadership speculation
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpd8d10n9x5o
I agree with Angela. Not so sure it’s a leadership bid style of announcement, it seems more timed to try and change policy rather than clear the way for her to become leader.
Oh, when it comes to policy changes, some good news :
Protect artists. Don’t bend over for the tech billionaires.
I think the problem with taxing the rich is one of optics.
It isn't and shouldn't be a tax on the working class who are doing well, you're still working class by definition. . If you have to work for a living you are not rich!
Net worth of over ten million I would say is a good if slightly arbitrary starting point rather than 1 million net worth.. Let's be honest.. A house worth half a million is fairly standard, that plus pensions and investments can easily push you into millionaire territory. I think people need to realise that a million quid isn't really that much money these days.
Ten million or more though.. Unless you're doing it really wrong you're on easy street with a lot of passive income from investments and creative accounting etc.
And with that in mind, with a net worth of over ten million you're really not going to miss 1 or 2%.
You might have to buy a slightly smaller boat than you'd like, or occasionally stay in a 4 star hotel rather than 5 star.. Oh the horror.
I think people need to realise that a million quid isn't really that much money these days.
Top 5% ?
I’m all for aiming a wealth tax at the top 0.5% instead, but when it was suggested here it was apparently deemed “unfair” to target the very wealthy.
I think people need to realise that a million quid isn't really that much money these days.
Top 5% ?
I’m all for aiming a wealth tax at the top 0.5% instead, but when it was suggested here it was apparently deemed “unfair” to target the very wealthy.
I'm fully in agreement with wealth tax if properly targeted. I think it's unpopular due to perception more than anything..
It shouldn't be about targeting the working class who are doing OK.. Lets say a small family in a 500 grand house mortgaged up to the eyeballs with a 5 series BMW on finance..
You're not rich if you are up to your eyeballs in debt and you can't afford to retire and still have to work. You're working class by definition.
I wouldn't like to put a percentage on it, but I think we can all agree that if your worth 10million, rather than 1 million, you can afford an extra 1% or 2% without crying into your pillow every night wondering how your gonna pay the next gas bill or have your car repossessed due to non payment.
Edit, it was quite refreshing to hear polanski say about weath tax and rejoining the EU - I might actually be in danger of voting green in the next GE! I just need to hear them say the UK will preserve its nuclear detterant and I'm in.
I think the LibDems saying we need a deterrent independent of the USA is the right policy now.
I think the LibDems saying we need a deterrent independent of the USA is the right policy now.
Yeah for sure.. I almost said something about that but didn't want to divert the convo too much..
Trident is too reliant on USA tech, IMO, and I think we've all learned we can't trust the USA any more... so I think as the UK we need to replace Trident with a new, home grown, or in partnership with the EU, nuclear weapons sysem.
That's obviously a huge project and a more long term strategy, but for me, we have to keep our nukes, such as they are until they can be replaced with less reliance on the USA.
Diasarment/Geting rid of them is not an option, IMO. Look at Ukraine,, they got rid of their nukes and russia just steam rollered right on in there.
Also UK armed forces are not great, in general, our nuclear capability is what keeps us rellevant in the EU, from a military/defence partnership perspective. It's the only thing we canreally bring to the table.
I just need to hear them say the UK will preserve its nuclear detterant and I'm in.
A quick Google of their nuclear policy took me to their website and guess what! their policy is not what the Daily Mail wants you to think it is!
I just need to hear them say the UK will preserve its nuclear detterant and I'm in.
A quick Google of their nuclear policy took me to their website and guess what! their policy is not what the Daily Mail wants you to think it is!
I did have a look, but in their last manifesto the tone was very much around nuclear disarmemant... have they said anything solid on the matter?
but when it was suggested here it was apparently deemed “unfair” to target the very wealthy.
No it was pointed out that it's pointless. and would be a massive amount of law creation, and staffing for very little additional return, when minor adjustments to some inheritance taxes,and CGT would achieve more or less the same thing much more simply and effectively.
From the '24 Manifesto:
Elected Greens will:
- Push for the UK to sign the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) and following this to immediately begin the process of dismantling our nuclear weapons, cancelling the Trident programme and removing all foreign nuclear weapons from UK soil.
Of course, that could be changed by the time we next have a general election, given the changing world around us. Just removing the word "immediately" would reassure a lot of voters.
No it was pointed out that it's pointless.
That claim was made. But it was also claimed that it was "unfair", but it may well have been in another thread (and not by you).
Diasarment/Geting rid of them is not an option, IMO. Look at Ukraine,, they got rid of their nukes and russia just steam rollered right on in there.
I'm in agreement that now is not the time for the UK to be unilaterally disarming. I'm not convinced Ukraine giving up their nukes (which they couldn't afford to maintain anyway) is really what let Russia invade? (they didn't steam roller - 12 years after invading Crimea and 4 years after invading the rest of Ukraine they are very much not making real progress). If they had a nuke would they have used it? Unlikely. Putin knows that (and probably knew that if they did, large parts of the world would not have been on Ukraine's side). IMHO he'd still have invaded - because only rogue states are going to be the ones to push the button first. Its why there is much more fear about NK or Iran having nukes than ****stan or even China - we trust that those countries all understand the concept of mutually assured destruction.
Not convinced by that. Geography is quite an important part beyond any particular technology, but ask the Scandinavians if they like the threat over their other shoulder and think UK Typhoons are an important part of the mix. Ask Denmark where it turned when it had drone issues at its airport.Also UK armed forces are not great, in general, our nuclear capability is what keeps us rellevant in the EU, from a military/defence partnership perspective. It's the only thing we can really bring to the table.
I think the LibDems saying we need a deterrent independent of the USA is the right policy now.
We have an independent nuclear deterrent - in that we alone get to decide if/when they are launched. The body of the missile we use - the sub launched Trident D5 are leased from the states, they're serviced and returned after end life use. The warheads are currently Holbrook, an Anglicized version of the US W76 warhead. The AWE is designing it's own warhead, the Astrera But I understand that it needs a new aero-housing, that the US are (obviously) reluctant to design and build. I think currently there are other things I'd prefer to spend cash on than replacing a missile body with one that would need to be exactly the same but we've built ourselves.
As part of the defense budget, having these weapons is a cheap way of remaining an international voice that can actually carry some weight. Which given the current world we live in, seems a good thing.
With the Donald suggesting that he'd like to leave NATO, that commitment in the Green manifesto to "work within NATO" looks even less convincing that I thought a couple of weeks ago.
Fair enough then.
Raynors is definitely on maneuvers is she not? Big critical set piece speech, two puff pieces in the Guardian
Starmer is just keeping the seat warm for whoever takes over after the May elections, everyone knows it so of course manoeuvres are starting.
Basically Labour is going to get hammered in the May elections, Starmer will justifiably be blamed and there will be a leadership election
The two main candidates are Rayner and Streeting - so they will both be on manoeuvres, just Rayner is outside cabinet so can do it publicly. Both are marmite within the Labour membership though.
I think Phillipson is a dark horse prospect.
I do not see Starmer going anywhere.
I do not see Starmer going anywhere.
I can't see it either.
Neither Rayner or Streeting will provide a jump in the polls for Labour.
I think Phillipson is a dark horse prospect.
Phillipson certainly doesn't come with the baggage Rayner and Streeting do - so could build a new narrative for the party.
NATO is obviously dead. Trump would only defend a European "ally" that hypothetically came under attack if he considered it in his interest to do so. Everyone knows this, even if few are prepared to state it.
Denmark has been actively arming Greenland against the threatened US invasion.
USA is no longer an ally.
The Greens may have been prescient or they may have been lucky, but they were correct that NATO is not a valid framework for our defence.
Raynors is definitely on maneuvers is she not? Big critical set piece speech, two puff pieces in the Guardian
I think this is just how media works these days isn't it? They have been addicted to this sort of non stop daily drama since the Brexit decision and the fallout from it, the Guardian not immune (by any stretch of the imagination) Any speech that any Labour politician within a few names gives is presented as Leadership challenge.
NATO is obviously dead
As it's presently arranged, yes. It could carry on without the US, the present arrangement - WW3 happens in Europe fought by the US, in exchange Europeans don't have to bankrupt themselves on defense, and American mainland doesn't get invaded. - is clearly no longer valid. Just prepare for massive spending on defence
https://bsky.app/profile/leftiestats.bsky.social/post/3mhgvbao2tc2h
Friday night poll to go to bed on.
"Stats for lefties" with Reform on top. 🙂
the future is going to be interesting……
with polling like that the key thing is how concentrated your vote is geographically .
I dont really care if the English are going to vote reform apart from i feel sorry for the decent folk that live there because if reform get in Scotland will be offski sharpish
Reform are polling at about 20% in Scotland aren't they? Not much lower than in England, especially considering a lot of the nationalist vote there will be taken by SNP.
Reform's numbers have been steadily declining for months now. Still narrowly leading but things would be extremely close if an election was held now I think.
Pointless poll.
”if you ignore our voting system, how would you vote?”
We’d have had several SDP/LibDem governments if it wasn’t for first past the post. As it is, “stopping” a candidate by tactical voting is essential to avoid a far right government come the next UK general election.
Pointless poll.
”if you ignore our voting system, how would you vote?”
We’d have had several SDP/LibDem governments if it wasn’t for first past the post. As it is, “stopping” a candidate by tactical voting is essential to avoid a far right government come the next UK general election.
It's pointless on one level but the poll with tactical voting is still close.
Far right options wouldn't exist in the mainstream if current 'moderate' parties had fixed the issues that creates that environment. Vote for parties that offer actual solutions not u-turns and copycat right-wing knee jerks plans. Tactial voting is a band-aid of the situation.
Reform's numbers have been steadily declining for months now. Still narrowly leading but things would be extremely close if an election was held now I think.
Key point. I think Reform have exahusted their lead with the same old arguments. (for now at least.)