Forum menu
How does Ireland manage btw, without being part of NATO or having their own WMDs? Would you say their government is failing “the very first role of government”?
Ireland is protected by the UK and has been for 70 years. Typhoon fighters can be scrambled and in Irish airspace with the agreement of the Irish Government. In 2020 cruise missile and nuclear-capable Russian "Bear" bombers were escorted from Irish airspace by UK aircraft
Ireland spends 0.2% GDP on defence, the lowest in the EU, the UK has more capable trainer aircraft in Wales than anything that the Irish Air Corps has
Who knows what happens in the seas around Ireland? They don't and they don't have an anti-submarine capability either 🙂
You have to be very careful how you criticise and take on Farage and his ilk, as Cameron and Osbourne found out the hard way. It is so easy to put fuel on his fire of being "anti political establishment". The "I'm not going to talk about him, but about the people directly affected" line may seem overly cautious to the chatterati, but there was a time where not making these political opportunists the story would have been a totally normal responsible response by a PM.
“What I am saying is my focus is on the families, the victims who are at the heart of this, and I think that that should be the focus for everybody. And anybody who says or does anything that impedes their ability to get the justice that they deserve cannot claim to be acting in their best interests, because they’re not.”
Because of the numbers Farage (spits on ground) needs to be treated as a safety problem for the country as a whole rather than a political problem for the Labour government. The tricky bit is not knowing where the Tories are going to end up. If they're going to move to the right to be able to absorb Reform, it puts a whole different perspective on things.
Personally I'd just proscribe Reform and any future incarnation, but apparently idiots and thugs should be allowed to vote too.
Then you end up in the " no platform" debate. where do you draw the line? I do not see reform as so very different to the tories right wingers.
No platform for racists seems an easy solution but dig down a bit and its full of issues. who decides who gets de platformed?
It’s a zero sum game for Starmer with that one
I agree. Criticising him is pretty much exactly the response Farage wants, as it puts him front and centre again and gives him the opportunity to say "The establishment don't want me asking question, they want to close me down" which is just what his supporters want to hear. Ignoring him isn't going to make him go away, but at least doesn't shift the story to him.
Labour cannot in my opinion be putting itself in the position of being 'the answer' to Farage's nonsense. Because 1. it's nonsense, Farage just pedals conspiracy theory crap, and can/will just make shit up, and you'd be forever trying to answer it, and 2. Regardless of any policy Labour puts in place to try to prise folks away from him, Farage supporters are not going to just suddenly have a damascene moment and decide that he's talking nonsense. Sort one issue out, and the response from him will just be some other far-fetched horseshit 'grievance' that needs attending to...Labour should of course enact policies that help the less well off, but not a way of politically undermining Farage, they can't win that war.
Are people actually complaining that our PM is not giving any attention to a person who craves attention and wants to play the wounded party all the time, honestly, if that's how you think i'd avoid playing games like chess!
You had to go away and have a long think as to why Starmer is right not to criticise Nigel Farage, didn't you Nick? I knew that you wouldn't let me down though.
Maybe Jess Phillips, who is Labour Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls at the Home Office, should be told why it is wrong to publicly criticise Nigel Farage?
Are people actually complaining that our PM is not giving any attention to a person who craves attention and wants to play the wounded party all the time, honestly, if that’s how you think i’d avoid playing games like chess!
LOL! I'm lovin the Idea of STWers claiming that Nigel Farage shouldn't be given the attention which he craves!
The political contortions which centrists can perform is really something!
Edit: Starmer was literally being asked about his opinions concerning the dangerous rhetoric from Nigel Farage, so the topic of Nigel Farage was being discussed. Saying that he didn't want to comment on the words of others didn't stop Farage being mentioned, it just gave the impression that Starmer wasn't too bothered.
I bet he would be keen to comment on the words of others if he thought those words were anti-semitic!
Starmer did criticise Farage, but did it collectively rather than making him the hero by name. Note that many Conservative politicians (including some sitting MPs) are also playing this “what are they not telling us” game. Something Osbourne should perhaps reflect on, and could maybe even choose to comment on. Many in his party are part of the problem, and not just those that openly embrace Farage as an individual.
The political contortions which centrists can perform is really something!
It's the standard centrist approach to populists/fascists. Try not to upset them too much and hope the problem goes away.
Anyway Starmer's problem are only just getting started. In addition to failing to stamp out this surge in far right thuggery, in a few months time he's going to have collapsing hospitals and skyrocketing waiting lists when the doctors start working to rule. One of the few things voters were demanding in the election were sorting out the waiting lists and being able to get a GP appointment. Both look like they're going to get a lot worse.
He's also got a major problem brewing with council tax reform. If the rumoured 0.5% of property values is going to replace 1990s bandings thats going to go down like a pint of cold sick with an enormous number of working and middle class home owners, especially in the south east and London.
he could solve both the above problems by properly funding GPs and local authorities, but that's not possible thanks to his chancellor's obsession with austerity and 'balancing the books'. Still I suppose they have a couple of months to engineer a rethink before the budget, but I doubt that's going to happen. Reeves looks like she's determined to play the role of fiscal grim reaper.
mattyfezFull Member
Can we re-join the EU yet?
Yes please.
Reeves looks like she’s determined to play the role of fiscal grim reaper.
It's an interesting tactic; we've had access to the books and there isn't a smoking gun so we'll have to play Conservative mismanagement for all it's worth. Five years to get rid of Labour's "tax and spend" mantle by adopting a debt rule similar to that of the Conservatives (but framed differently)
What changes does the Labour government propose?
Labour’s manifesto for the 2024 General Election proposes the following fiscal rules:
• balancing the current budget, so that day-to-day costs are met by revenues
• debt must be falling as a share of the economy by the fifth year of the forecastLabour’s debt rule appears to be the same as the existing debt rule.
To change the existing rules, the Chancellor will need to lay a revised Charter before Parliament. The Charter will come into force once it has been approved with a vote of the House of Commons
She could change the rules and while she's at it force any economic claims to go through the OBR to ensure their veracity and to avoid some of the outright lies that are used in the run up to an election
Just some random thoughts.
I've seen some prices of good starting to come down, slightly, more so than they have in the last year.
Public Sector appears to be getting some big (relative to the last 5/10 yrs) pay increases.
Wins on both counts for me.
But there appear to be more riots (or is this just right wing press making sure it gets publicised)
More talks of strikes
Reversing of privitisaion, going back in to Europe.
So actually a shift to liberalism, even anarchy which leads to lower productivity
It’s an interesting tactic
It's a suicidal tactic/strategy. She's trying to repeat the tories trick of blaming everything they don't do on the previous govt. The difference between now and 2010 though is that voters want labour to fix all the problems they see in public services, the NHS and schools etc, and they don't care how much they need to spend to do it because they'd rather be able to get a GP appointment and not wait 16 hours in A+E. If Labour fail on these basic requirements then voters will very quickly decide they are incompetent and will vote for someone else.
because they’d rather be able to get a GP appointment and not wait 16 hours in A+E. If Labour fail on these basic requirements then voters will very quickly decide they are incompetent and will vote for someone else
Trouble is any change in the NHS, and I assume schools will take more than one parliament to even get close to making the change required.
At least Labour have now gone back on their word on tax rises and are saying they will increase taxes.
Tough choices
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1819297166092808227
Tory voters like him
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1819297164188606805
Trouble is any change in the NHS, and I assume schools will take more than one parliament to even get close to making the change required.
Where is your evidence for that assumption? Of course it could be fixed in one parliament, given the finances and the political will. What you really mean is that it can't be fixed by not spending any more money and taking some more radical action. And they don't have to fix it completely, all the voters will want is some visible signs of improvement. Are you saying that's not possible?
he could solve both the above problems by properly funding GPs and local authorities, but that’s not possible thanks to his chancellor’s obsession with austerity and ‘balancing the books’.
Streeting has increased the contract uplift from the 1.9% settlement under the Tories to accept the recommended 6% (backdated to Apr 24) . He's also amended the rules around additionally funded support staff to allow recruitment of GP and nurses (and increased funding by another £82million for 24/25). It won't solve all the issues, and I think the BMA are still considering action. - Our own GP running costs has increased 16% from last years and 32% overall since the pandemic.
Can't speak for local govt.
Trouble is any change in the NHS, and I assume schools will take more than one parliament to even get close to making the change required.
We're all okay with the time it might take but the intention to do it is crippled by fiscal rules.
Drop the fiscal rules - we might start to make the moves we all want. Reeves will not last - with this sort of a plan or act, or whatever the hell she's up to. It's the opposite of what we need.
I'm seeing weakness in various parts of the economy probably from the backdraft of those interest rates. Things are lagging and could get much worse. That's not Labour's fault but will be become Labour's problem.
Where is your evidence for that assumption?
Doctor training is a minimum of 8 years, nurse training 3 years. Specialists nurses who can take up some of the doctors work are a minimum of 6 years. Edit: This is just the tip of the iceberg. Most specialist teams have massive shortages.
Much of the damage with intake of doctors has already be done with generations coming through. People are not applying to become doctors because the pay and standards are so poor compared to comparative jobs (including the level of dent incurred whilst in training).
Improving the number of doctors in the NHS is going to take years, much more than 4!
Labour have said they will reduce waiting list by asking doctors to work evenings and weekends. Except they have forgotten 1. Doctors are already burnt out from COVID 2. There are not enough doctors so they already work long hours 3. Refusal to change pension rules means that for many turning up to work costs them money, and stopping the use of LLPs
Doctor training is a minimum of 8 years, nurse training 3 years. Specialists nurses who can take up some of the doctors work are a minimum of 6 years.
Well I'll defer to expert opinion like Nick's but I doubt it's just about the number of doctors and nurses. Even if it were we could import them from elsewhere and take measures to prevent them leaving (more pay basically). And then there's prevention strategies and other stuff to reduce demand for NHS services. The starting point though is ensuring that the funding is there to do whatever is required. If we start from the position of 'there is no more money' anything we do try do will fail.
The general point is not about the specifics of what needs to happen to fix the NHS and schools etc, it's that trying to do anything in an environment of austerity with a narrative that 'we have no money' is doomed to failure. FFS if you're a new govt promising 'change and renewal' at least give yourselves a fighting chance!
If we start from the position of ‘there is no more money’ anything we do try do will fail.
I don't think that's the starting point, there's clearly an appetite to both find the funding to somehow resolve the recruitment gap.(Happy to explain how it works, but it's boringly complex) and look at the contract funding for GP going forward. There are currently sufficient GP trainees to fill vacant posts, it just that few (if any really) GP practices can afford to offer them a position. The GP contract needs further revision, that's probably coming next year by the sounds of it.
BMA are encouraging GPs to take industrial action, and I an understand why. A quick run around at my practices reveals very mixed feelings from the partners and GPs about it.
Well I’ll defer to expert opinion like Nick’s
Oh I hoped I knew something about the field I work in.....
The general point is not about the specifics of what needs to happen to fix the NHS and schools etc, it’s that trying to do anything in an environment of austerity with a narrative that ‘we have no money’ is doomed to failure
Agreed and therefore Labour were very dishonest in the election campaign. Of course they knew any change would cost money, yet they said no tax increases, in fact even cutting NI. Now surprisingly when they are in power, it has come as a big shock that there is no money and they need to put taxes up !
Would have been interesting to see how much vote they would have lost if they had been honest and said they were going to put taxes up pre election.
There are currently sufficient GP trainees to fill vacant posts
unfortunately this is not the case when you get to speciality training in Hospitals
There are currently sufficient GP trainees to fill vacant posts, it just that few (if any really) GP practices can afford to offer them a position. The GP contract needs further revision, that’s probably coming next year by the sounds of it.
So it is down to money then rather than lack of doctors. That's an easy problem to solve in this parliament.
Everything is ultimately down to money
Undoubtedly that's more that can be done but that's ^ not a bad start.
They're also making a start on the asylum issue, where the Tories had really just talked shit for 5 years. Accommodating asylum seekers was costing nearly 5bn a year, because they were all in a weird limbo entirely of the government's making where they could neither be granted or denied any right to leave.
But yeah, they're not doing anything. Bastards. ?
People are not applying to become doctors because the pay and standards are so poor compared to comparative jobs
How many medicine places are offered to prospective students via clearing? Training places for medicine has been a political choice for decades. The issue is one of supply and demand, and the supply side has failed. We chose to source clinicians from outside the UK. Then closed the door on the EU. The majority of new GMC registrations have been from foreign doctors. This was an interesting debate.
Interestingly, there is also a shortage of pilots in the UK, and this is a financial supply side issue rather than training places. Airlines withdrew sponsorship some time ago. Debt is at least as large as medicine, and no funding is available. Guess how that shortage is being met? Airlines are now opening pilot academies and sponsoring scores of trainees. They won’t be trained in the UK as many of the flying schools had a hard time over Covid. But the market has reacted.
I'm not quite sure what some folk on here are expecting, it's running a country, not a popularity contest, i'm pretty sure that Starmer, Reeves, et al would rather be going in front of the press talking about spending vast sums on improving, rather than looking for cuts, i'm not sure how folk think they are desperate to bring in austerity and destroy the country, these are the people in the cabinet, who are supported by an entire government department, and the best experts on the planet assisting them in planning.
Yes, there are experts who state the opposite, same as in every field, we have the Richard Murphy's, and the Stephanie Kelton's, who espouse MMT and other options, but they are not inside looking out, they have not got the same information to support their theories that the advisors have who are providing the policies to government.
I’m not quite sure what some folk on here are expecting
If you read my posts on the election thread you'd have seen that I thought we could expect outstanding disputes with doctors etc to be settled, an increase in public sector pay and cash injections for the NHS and local authorities. I was right on the pay deals and public sector pay rises, but so far we haven't seen much evidence of much more money for the NHS and local authorities. In fact on funding we've seen the opposite, which I find very dissappointing because lets be honest that's the very minimum I think we should expect from a labour govt. There's a whole lot more a labout govt should be doing, but if they can't even find money for the NHS then what hope is there of them doing the other stuff?
they said no tax increases
They detailed some very specific tax increases (see earlier in this thread for discussion around one of them), and ruled some others out (eg NI & income tax). Plenty more areas where they refused to say and left it to future budgets. More tax rises will be coming, they are unlikely to be anything you see directly on your pay slip though if you are PAYE.
I thought we could expect outstanding disputes with doctors etc to be settled, an increase in public sector pay and cash injections for the NHS and local authorities.
so you've had fifty percent of what you expected in the first month? and they haven't done a budget yet. bastards. 🙂
I think they have done pretty well and generally set the right tone apart from the stupid fiscal rules stuff. Unless they dramatically change that then nothing major is going to change. And yes, we knew all about that before they were elected which is why some of were not that happy about it.
If they had another Covid would they insist of fiscal rules and 'balancing the books", no didn't think so. Again, just a case of priorities and how much they really want to make really noticeable positive changes and how quickly.
It's the fact that to me that they're flat out incorrect on finances. I mean nearly all of this thinking is Conservative macro logic.
Failed Conservative logic.
We've had the austerity test - massive disaster. Why would you choose not to learn from that?
It's also the fact that GDP follows spending not the other way around.
On the back of all this it's looming hard certainly in the USA currently that recession - a proper one, on its way.
Now it's easy to just call recession and get it wrong but eventually those interest rates would do something bad.
We're probably about to go through that too and that is why the BoE started to tweak rates this week
But they've left them too high for too long in the belief that interest rates have been sticky. Well they're sticky because you've been adding money to the economy without taxation to adjust the amount of money.
A recession with no spending = depression.
No one needs that. Labour don't need that.
The black-hole thing was a ridiculously stupid move. Bringing nonsense terms into the public consciousness and saddling themselves with logic they can't really explain. That weren't accurate either. It's the Tory playbook of awful sound bites. This is the opposite of what grown-up speak is.
I mean, these OBR forecasts themselves are based on what might happen in five years if the economy meets certain targets.
Totally ridiculous.
You have to hit the ground running with good plans - think big or what will follow will be disasterous especially because of where we are in public discourse - pandemic, cost of living crisis, tory ruin - what comes next? Civil disobedience and it will be pinned on Labour.
No one is asking them to fix things in the first month - we don't need to keep going there - we are asking them to prime the engines to not make terrible false excuses for what they can't do.
How does Ireland manage btw, without being part of NATO or having their own WMDs? Would you say their government is failing “the very first role of government”?
Ukraine is in talks to defend Ireland in a bilateral security agreement https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/08/2/7468675/ 🙂
@rone They're going to need the backdoor ID scheme that was kite flown yesterday. The spirit of Blunkett walks amongst us still and the Blair taint is still there.
<Deleted>
Answered my own question.
He’s also got a major problem brewing with council tax reform. If the rumoured 0.5% of property values is going to replace 1990s bandings thats going to go down like a pint of cold sick with an enormous number of working and middle class home owners, especially in the south east and London.
That would suit me quite nicely...I'd be about £600 per year better off!!
Even someone with a £250,000 house would only be paying £1250 per year, which presumably would also represent a saving for them???
You'd need to be in a house worth probably 400k or more before you end up paying more than you do now.
You’d need to be in a house worth probably 400k or more before you end up paying more than you do now.
Which is every house for miles around where I live. Even a cheap builder done up pretty rough ex council house is up for sale for £450K. So most people are going to be paying around £4K rather than the £2.3k today. Not the best way to tax is it as believe it or not a lot of the people living where I do are not actually that well off, they have just lived there for a long time.
Yes, I know, they should just simply move out of the area they have lived in for 40 years and get a cheap place 50 miles away.
Well something needs to happen... think of it as a structrual adjustment in the overpriced housing market.
Using your example, a £450k house @ 0.5% will be paying £2250 per year in council tax.
I actually think it's quite a sensible thing to do...the banding system was always a mess, It's quite amusing when the champagne socialists on here get all bent out of shape about it.
Taxes are always things for other people to pay.
most people are going to be paying around £4K rather than the £2.3k today.
You might need to re-check your maths on that,
0.5% of 450000 is 2250.
hahahah!
0.5% of value would suit me, as i'd get a discount from it, but that's not really going to work across the country with helping fund councils, reason i live where i do is due to the lower house prices, but i don't think there's a corresponding drop in people who will need council assistance just because house prices here are 20% lower.