Forum menu
despite the fact that it is a perfectly reasonable term to use
But only in newspapers, It's also says that Reeves is "scrambling" to find cuts and tax raises of £40m. It's how newspapers speak. Take it at face value if you want, but really it's there for a purpose, and it ain't to aid clarity to a story.
kerley
That is why some of us wanted Labour to be a lot more ambitious and progressive – not only because we feel that is better for society but also for future chances of winning elections based on the fact they actually improved things noticeably.
I agree with all that. I voted for Corbyn twice but even whilst putting that "X" in the box, I left the booth both times knowing it was a lost cause. It was crushing.
For reasons I don't agree with or totally understand, the country wasn't ready to have Corbyn as PM.
I wish it wasn't so but we all live in the reality of the day and like it or not, the UK definitely was ready for Starmer to be PM. Now, as much as I try I can't see Starmer's GE victory as a bad thing. I don't and wont agree with all his policies, the same with Corbyn's had history differed. However, fundamentally, we now have a government that will try to improve the country's fortunes even if we might not agree with how it tries to do it at times.
So, yeah, some might easily forget the constant culture war and turmoil of the Tories but I'm not one of them.
For reasons I don’t agree with or totally understand, the country wasn’t ready to have Corbyn as PM.
On the contrary, in 2017 labour won 40% of the vote which is 6% higher than Starmer and on a par with Blair. The country seemed quite comfortable with Corbyn as PM, it was Labour MPs who didn't want him.
On the contrary, in 2017 labour won 40% of the vote which is 6% higher than Starmer and on a par with Blair. The country seemed quite comfortable with Corbyn as PM, it was Labour MPs who didn’t want him.
We can go round and round on this but it always ends the same way, Corbyn lost. Labour lost. The country also lost imo. We can lay the blame at our election system, the RW press, murky invested interests, it really doesn't matter.
After both GE's I woke up to another Tory government, that's the reality and it's an irrefutable fact of history. I'm not happy about it either but it's what happened. Twice.
We can go round and round on this but it always ends the same way, Corbyn lost. Labour lost.
It wasn't you that brought up Corbyn? Btw the Tories also lost the 2017 general election, no party won that election, just for clarity.
It wasn’t you that brought up Corbyn? Btw the Tories also lost the 2017 general election, no party won that election, just for clarity.
It's at this point that I enact the Honourable Flounce Protocol™ for my and other posters sanity.
Some will agree with my posts, some wont but either outcome is fine with me.
I shall return! 😉
It was actually a serious question......was it not you who brought up Corbyn? If so I don't understand the whinge about 'going round and round and it always ends the same way '.
If it wasn't you my apologies, if it was then perhaps don't mention him, if you believe that it is pointless?
We can go round and round on this but it always ends the same way, Corbyn lost. Labour lost
But your point was that the country wasn't ready for Corbyn. He won more votes than Starmer did irrespective of how many the tories got. Does that mean the country was less ready for Starmer than they were for Corbyn? The number of votes would seem to suggest that.
I’ll bet that Reeves reducing the ‘bung’ that the BoE is paying out 5% interest on bank reserves of 700bn – saves 35bn and will announce it at Budget
That would be very welcome. The irony of pinching one of the main economic policies of the Reform party is not lost however.
Even if the country wasn't ready for Corbyn a lot of people were ready for what he and shadow chancellor were proposing where in 2017 they did well in the election even with Corbyn as leader. What if Starmer was there instead of Corbyn, would they have scraped a win? Who knows and probably mostly who cares as it was 7 years ago.
What the country definitely isn't ready for is more austerity.
Which is presumably why Rachel Reeves is so keen to claim that her austerity isn't austerity at all.
Although all the signs are that voters are not really falling for that remarkable claim. Voters don't appear to be quite as stupid as Tories and centrists like to think they are.
The irony of pinching one of the main economic policies of the Reform party is not lost however.
I've read their policies on the "contract with you" page of their website, a surprising number of things they suggest are not completely barking; not least this bit of financial jiggery-pokery.
The Lord Ashcroft analysis showed Corbyn was streets ahead among the under 50's and it was only the over 75's or something that swung it towards the tories.
Not that the over 75 vote is worth any less, but still I think it's interesting to reflect on the fact that those with the biggest stake in the economy at that time, ie the under 60's, were happy to elect Corbyn on the whole, despite the huge campaign by the right wing media to characterise his politics as being economically suboptimal.
Which is presumably why Rachel Reeves is so keen to claim that her austerity isn’t austerity at all.
Every political party in the western hemisphere tries to balance departmental (day to day) spending with tax revenues. Austerity is when you spend less than the taxes you gather. That our economy is now smaller by a considerable margin than it was (taking a year completely at random) than say 2016 for example; probably shouldn't be something that gets laid specifically at Reeves or this Labour administration.
Not that the over 75 vote is worth any less
It should be. The best voting reform we could ever make is to remove the vote from pensioners.
Like Logan’s Run?
Like Logan’s Run?
?
I'm talking about rebalancing the voting power of generations in favour of the young who have a higher stake in the future, not killing people off to save resources.
tbf rebalancing the voting power of generations is an equally stupid suggestion as killing off the over 40’s. Maybe disenfranchise women as they stay at home and don’t work so have less of a stake in the future, or those without degrees - they’re not going to earn as much and are a bit thick so won’t have any real stake in the future either
Maybe disenfranchise women as they stay at home and don’t work
Think you're about 50 years out of date mate. You might want to catch up and think about more modern issues like the disenfranchisement and impoverishment of the younger generation by people who have enjoyed a massive unearned boost to their own wealth through property price inflation and gilt-edged pensions.
Remove the heavy weighing towards the older generation by introducing PR. It's not just that we have an aging population voting, it's all about where people are concentrated geographically that skews the power towards the older home owning generation. Young people living in cities are so often just throwing their vote on a pile of votes placed by their young neighbours voting the same... it's one of the reasons so may don't vote. We need to count people's votes, and make those votes count... not disenfranchise people by age, education, or any other category. And give 16 and 17 year olds the vote.
Remove the heavy weighing towards the older generation by introducing PR
It's probably one of the strongest arguments for PR, but I'm not sure it solves the far right/reform problem. Seeing as the older generation are the main culprits in voting for reactionary fascists I still favour my solution. Kill two birds with one stone. 😉
And give 16 and 17 year olds the vote.
Give them two votes!
If we're going to be disenfranchising people, my feeling is that over a certain financial threshold you shouldn't be allowed to vote, so chose one or the other. If you're free from the worries of paying the mortgage or 'leccy bill, or being out of work for more than a few weeks/months, then you shouldn't have a say in how the rest of us organise things.
Disenfranchising more voters won't help, that is already being done political backers filtering the policies they will support. That is what labours victory is based on, offer nothing deliver nothing and hope the far right don't re-assemble and purge the left. We already have a government of disenfranchisement.
I read yesterday one of the tory hopefulls is dead set on leaving the ECHR...
So whilst Labour have leaned more toward the center from the frankly loony far left under corbyn.. the tories have leaned even further right.
I think things like that seem to be amusingly forgotten when some say that Labour are just tory lite.
Which of labours policies was "looney far left" by the way?
Is not implementing crippling austerity "looney far left" now, or supporting workers rights is that "looney far left"?
Abolishing Trident for a start... That would not have aged well given the Russian war we have today!
The guy is/was absolutely clueless... I'd sooner vote conservative than Labour with that fantasist in charge!
Plus he was totally anti EU... So much for socialism!! His kind of socialism with him as supreme dictator doesn't sound very much like socialism to me... It sounds very much like something else, lol!
Abolishing Trident for a start…
That was never a labour policy in a Corbyn manifesto.
Corbyn's manifestos weren't even socialist. I don't ever remember him suggesting the state was going to sieze the means of production. I think you basically imagined it all based on lies printed in the tory press. Well done!
I think you basically imagined it all based on lies printed in the tory press.
Exhibit A:
https://www.politico.eu/article/trident-corbyn-vote-nuclear-news-deterrent/
Need I go on? Lol
Which of labours policies was “looney far left” by the way?
In 2017 the plan to nationalise the railways, water, and post office while conveniently omitting them from the "fully costed" promise that they made. In of themselves not bad per see, just the commitment to do it regardless as a matter of ideology while hiding the cost (which would still be onerous). On the doorstep the govt broadband plan was mostly met with derision (as a canvasser/leafleter)
Abolishing Trident for a start…
That was never a labour policy in a Corbyn manifesto.
Oh there you go with your nitpicking again. Next you will be reminding us how Corbyn warned UK politicians not to cosy up with Putin and the Russian oligarchy!
The important thing is what the Daily Mail told its readers, not what is actually true.
Oh yes.. I forgot about the free internet for everyone unicorn, hahah!
Exhibit A:
So you yourself provides evidence which completely undermines your previous claim that under Corbyn Labour had a policy of abolishing Trident? Well done!!
I actually voted Labour in the last election...
I don't particularly like Starmer, but I'd take him over corbyn or the Conservative party.
A bit a a Hobsons choice, but it is what it is.
Whatever.. That's enough political for me today.
Carry on...
That’s enough political for me today.
Good move, you may want to actually be able to back up your comments about the looney far left next time. Have a think about what far left would actually be and then compare it to the pretty moderate Corbyn manifesto.
On the doorstep the govt broadband plan was mostly met with derision (as a canvasser/leafleter)
I concur (it wasn't policy in 2017 though). And it was a policy that I fully supported... OpenReach just eats subsidies to fail to deliver anywhere near the infrastructure that's normal across Europe. But selling that policy was impossible. As was the creeping stealth nationalisation of a share of all large companies under the guise of employee ownership (also a 2019 voter repelling late add on)... without the employees actually owning anything. Energy and water nationalisation were popular though. Although nationalising fossil fuel use made no sense to me... it needs to die quietly in the private sector... the multiple billing company stuff is a total mess, proven by the recent collapses in that sector. Water should still be considered. Well, I'll go further than that, events will mean water has to be considered.
Rail is happening though. And in a way that makes sense to all but the most ideologically stubborn.
That our economy is now smaller by a considerable margin than it was (taking a year completely at random) than say 2016 for example
At the end of 2023 our economy was just under 8% bigger than it was in 2016.
Oh yes.. I forgot about the free internet for everyone unicorn, hahah!
You don't think having universal high speed internet is important in this day and age? Funny how immediately after 2019 we were suddenly in a world where working from home was required and the communications network was found to be wholly inadequate. Bang for buck the free internet policy would have been the most cost-effective investment to the country's infrastructure that we've ever seen and would have provided a significant economic stimulus through higher productivity and innovation. Lets not bother with all that new-fangled technology though eh? Here in the UK we do everything the old way.
meftyFree Member
That our economy is now smaller by a considerable margin than it was (taking a year completely at random) than say 2016 for example
At the end of 2023 our economy was just under 8% bigger than it was in 2016.
Its how the economy (or GDP) is distributed that is the issue,
it’s all very well saying that the economy is “x%” increased but if it goes into the hands of business’s or individuals that can obfuscate for tax purposes then it means sod all
You don’t think having universal high speed internet is important in this day and age?
Last reply this evening, I promise!
A) yes but B...
B) Who's going to pay for all the ongoing infrastructure maintenence and the built in technical debt? raise income tax for everyone by a few percent, including those who already pay £25 per month for internet?
lol, re you really claiming that "technical debt" for high speed internet would raise taxes by a few percent. By that maths the technical debt of all state projects and infrastructure should increase tax by about 1000%
Anyway, has any one got a "loony far left" policy yet, we have had two attempts and 2 failures so far.
Anyway, has any one got a “loony far left” policy yet, we have had two attempts and 2 failures so far.
Abandoning austerity?
raise income tax for everyone by a few percent
Labour's costings for the policy in 2019 were approx 20bn. That was to be spent over 10 years. Of course you wouldn't have to raise such a paltry sum by raising taxes because you'd do what Rachel Reeves is about to do an 'borrow' it, but even if you did, some quick chatgpting suggest the rate of tax would have to increase by around 0.2% over 10 years.
including those who already pay £25 per month for internet?
You do realise it was 'free' broadband? As in end users wouldn't have to pay it. For many £25 a month would be more than the extra income tax they would have to pay. It's a no-brainer.
Yup. And geographically redistributive. The areas that need improved connectivity the most are those away from centres of wealth. A sound policy. It was good for business, good for the economy. But voters didn’t get it. Partly because it was being explained by politicans that didn’t get it! And it was part of the “new nationalisation every morning” policy rollout in 2019… sure, that energised voter turnout… but in both positive and negative ways for Labour.
This is a surprisingly inactive thread, considering the topic, no activity for over a week!
Anyway I found this quite interesting:
Sir Keir Starmer’s approval rating has collapsed more significantly after winning an election than any other prime minister in modern history, a new poll has shown.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-polling-approval-ratings-b2637357.html
Following the July election, which saw the Labour Party win a landslide majority of 174 seats, the prime minister approval rating reached a high of plus 11.
But by October, just days before Rachel Reeves’ Budget on Wednesday, new polling from More in Common showed that the prime minister’s personal approval rating has fallen to -38 – a net drop of 49 points.
Sir Tony Blair’s approval rating was at plus 46 in August 1997, three months after he won a landslide election victory. At the time of the election, his approval rating stood at plus 60.
I wonder how long the PLP will give Starmer before they decide to replace him and hopefully avert a Tory-Reform coalition government next general election.
I wonder how long the PLP will give Starmer before they decide to replace him and hopefully avert a Tory-Reform coalition government next general election.
Possibly looking at a by-election in my constituency of Runcorn & Helsby if Mike Amesbury has to stand down. Reform came second so could well win which would pile the pressure on Starmer.
I will bet 50p that Starmer doesn't get replaced by the PLP. Starmer's fall has been precipitous but I think the days of PMs having long periods of positive ratings are gone. I think you could appoint David Attenborough as PM and within weeks/months he'd be the most hated man in the UK. Folks are just in that mood at the minute I think.
but I think the days of PMs having long periods of positive ratings are gone.
I take it that you didn't bother to read the article.
This is a surprisingly inactive thread, considering the topic, no activity for over a week!
I think everyone is waiting for the budget now, lets see what happens, I don't hold out much hope, but you never know. By the end of tomorrow we will see if we have a labour government in just name or if we have a labour government with some labour values.
think you could appoint David Attenborough as PM and within weeks/months he’d be the most hated man in the UK. Folks are just in that mood at the minute I think.
We keep telling these stupid hogs that things can never get better, all we can do is take away their cigarettes and tell them they need weight loss jabs, and for some reason they don't like us...
I think you could appoint David Attenborough as PM and within weeks/months he’d be the most hated man in the UK.
That would depend on the media response to him. If he didn’t align himself with any political party he might be left to get on with it for a tad longer, who knows.
Entirely unsurprised by the last few months of shifting goalposts for politicians now that Labour are in government. Not surprised that public sentiment has been moved so successfully by that endeavour by the press & media either. Those that painted these current Labour MPs as “the establishment” tend to be the same ones revelling in the press and wider establishment media gunning for them for successfully.
According to the pollster :
Mr Tryl blamed two key issues for the change in approval ratings, explaining: “If you ask what people have noticed, by a country mile it is the decision on the winter fuel allowance and the early release of prisoners.”
He also pointed to the row over freebies and donations.
I am not sure how the press and wider media are responsible for that, beyond their roles as news providers and reporting it.
I am not sure how the press and wider media are responsible for that, beyond their roles as news providers and reporting it.
well you are correct that the policies and actions are those of the politicians not the media but the relative attention of the media on any particular topic is a conscious decision, they pick the headlines, they pick the emphasis, they can decide if a story like winter fuel is a weekend of pain or weeks of regurgitation of the same story. They can chose if they present it as robbing from pensioners or rebalancing the fact that the wealthiest pensioners already got the best inflation boost of anyone etc. Now of course the government and their spin doctors can do the same but the editors carry a lot of power in how the public hear and absorb these stories. Same for prisons - starmer letting them out v tories over filled them.
Actually, what I think has been a PR shambles for them is the budget speculation: it seems everyone, of every political interest and none is expecting pain in the budget. Nobody is talking about any potential upsides. And it has been like that for two months now. That’s a lot of negative sentiment.
but the editors carry a lot of power in how the public hear and absorb these stories.
Yep, the reason much of the time that papers like the Sunday Times are able to report that MPs are taking freebies, is that they, along with Sky News, the BBC ITN etc invited them in the first place. It's a pretty cheap way to make sure you've a story tucked away for a rainy day
There is no incentive for corporations to supply super high speed broadband to everyone, this was recognised in the USA and they attempted to pay corporations to do it and they got bugger all in exchange:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-book-of-broken-promis_b_5839394
The sensible answer is view access to the internet as a standard utility and nationalise it.
The UK is currently rated ~50th for broadband speeds in the world, which is pretty poor considering the size of our economy and our population density.
The whole PLP were complicit in the election strategy of "the Tories are doing so bad in the polls we don't actually have to show our hand to get elected", so they aren't going to ditch Starmer now that the electorate are starting to see what he actually stands for and seemingly don't like it.
If you ask what people have noticed, by a country mile it is the decision on the winter fuel allowance and the early release of prisoners
The early release of prisoners that the Tory government was preparing for?
Yeah, right.
What they have noticed is what the right wing rags, and those that take their lead in other media, have focused on. Freeing up space in overstretched prisons is pretty easy to understand, if presented at face value, but even easier to turn into fun “news” stories with pictures of one or two prisoners being picked up in rented Bentleys etc. On winter fuel payments… all pensioners will be still better off this winter… and it’s time to stop handouts to richer pensioners and crack on with repairing children’s services… but painting the change as “bashing poor pensioners”, is easy. And all the campaign clothes stuff etc… past leaders (when not Labour) have their wives praised for wearing top end designer outfits given or lent to them… “supporting British fashion”, but of course you should never expect the papers and wider media to do anything other than paint the wives of Labour leaders as freeloaders if doing something similar. It’s not just “reporting the news”, the decisions made on the focus and style of reporting is key. Would any other Labour leader have got an easier ride in the first year? Of course not, Miliband, Corbyn and Brown would have been mercilessly pursued if they’d won an election… and in all three cases probably more so… but no one should go painting the British media as being even handed here, they are not, they are anti-Labour and double standards and moving goalposts have been plentiful in their coverage since the election.
but of course you should never expect the papers and wider media to do anything other than paint the wives of Labour leaders as freeloaders if doing something similar.
But Keir Starmer himself has said that it was a mistake and that he won't be doing it again in the future.
Whose fault is that.........the far-right/far-left BBC?
Better to apologize then to complain of double standards in the press, pretty simple PR there.
Yeah but it was wrong, wasn't it?
Giving some geezer a free Downing Street pass after he's bought you a suit and a pair of prescription glasses - whilst you are earning megabucks yourself?!?
This is a surprisingly inactive thread, considering the topic, no activity for over a week
I just feel everything they do is ****ing dreadful, and personally it's burning me out a little thinking about how bad they are.
Everything they do seems miscalculated, irresponsible and needless.
I'm already very tired of seeing Starmer announce random brainless nuggets simply leading me to believe they haven't got a clue what they're doing. (The bus cap another in a long line of ridiculously stupid ideas.)
The black-hole hysteria has simply sowed the seeds of bad economic policy founded in a total misrepresentation of the government's capacity to spend.
I just can't imagine how bad the budget is going to be..
Honestly, fabricated black-holes, arbitrary fiscal rules and wet dream subservience to the markets (markets that the damn government enables) - has destroyed Labour's purpose.
None of this was necessary.
****ing adults in the room. Good Christ.
There seems to be no end of rage to be made from comparing justice process and outcomes. People getting less for doing worse, people getting fast tracked for doing things perceived as less serious while victims of more serious things await justice while perpetrators still free.
Released prisoners, Southport attacker, Huw Edwards, Manchester Airport attack involving police, Chris Kaba police officer, people who said things on social media during the asylum riots, people on side 1 vs side 2 of the asylum riots, Tommy Robinson, farmer who took yobs to the police on his quad bike, climate protestors...
It's an interesting point on the role newspapers play in driving perception, this one caught my eye late last night for instance. It's today's headline.
Ostensibly it's not saying much that any reasonable person should be surprised about. Did anyone think the NHS (and all the associated issues that cause bed blocking etc) would be cured after the budget? However, look at the wording...
Budget still won't cure the NHS
and
despite huge handout tomorrow
So...
The headline is representing a genuine attempt to improve the NHS as a "handout" and that the handout wont be enough anyway.
Now...
Its asking it's readers to bemoan the funds going to the NHS, indeed, calling them a "handout", just like those 'orrid people on benefits get whilst simultaneously saying it's not enough of a handout anyway.
Schrödinger's handout it seems. 🙂
It's probably fair to say that the age demographic of The Mail means their readership is likely to be heavily dependant upon a functioning NHS but in one headline, on one single day, it has likely achieved what it wanted, which was to portray Labour trying to repair a flailing NHS as apparently against the readers interest... and it's readers will lap it up of course.
It's nothing new of course but it's important to see it for what it is. If even trying to properly fund the NHS can be portrayed as a negative then basically anything Labour do will be criticised. As always there are very powerful, vested interests at play here and if you were ever unsure of why Labour kept it's cards close to it's chest during the election campaign, just look at this one, single headline. Then remember it and similar rags will be pumping this out, day in, day out.
As for the budget and Labour in general?
I remain optimistic about Labour but also realistic. I won't like all their policies and it's going to take time for things to objectively improve.
I just feel everything they do is **** dreadful, and personally it’s burning me out a little thinking about how bad they are.
Yep, they are worse than I thought they would be and not giving them much benefit of doubt before them winning was about right.
Another good example is bus fare cap. Okay an extension was not budgeted apparently but the thing that actually matters is what sort of people use buses who actually pay for them? I would guess the poorer people in society rather than the richer in society so why not leave them at £2. That person on mininum wage who gets the bus to work every day could be paying £500 more a year which offsets their minimum wage increase (although the minimum wage increase is a positive)
Good morning kerley and please don't take this as a personal dig in any shape or form, it honestly isn't, your post just got me thinking as I'm sat here.
I think the problem you are faced with is that the party you want was never on the ballot paper. If it was, it would have got my vote too. Is that a failing of Labour or even the UK political system? Possibly, but it's the reality we live in so it's the only reality that matters.
Everything they do seems miscalculated, irresponsible and needless
This +loads
They've had years to think things through, prepare policies, tell Parliament and launch policies with proper publicity, but we have problem after problem
I get that the riots wrong-footed prison reform, but that was the only uncontrollable and unforeseeable occurrence
I think the problem you are faced with is that the party you want was never on the ballot paper.
Yes, I would imagine the party that each person wants is never on the ballot paper and it is a compromise. That doesn't mean I cannot criticise the things the party (that I voted for) are doing does it?
They are doing stupid things that really didn't need doing. Yes review WFA, get all people claiming correctly etc,. but it was not an emergency to scrap it this year. Why put up bus fares when typically poorer people use buses who it is going to hit harder, again no emergency to do so was there.
The vibe they are giving out (as a Labour Party) is pretty awful.
Kerley
That doesn’t mean I cannot criticise the things the party (that I voted for) are doing does it?
Lord no and apologies if my post came across that way.
It’s an interesting point on the role newspapers play in driving perception, this one caught my eye late last night for instance
Yeah, but free Halloween sweets from M&S!
I foresee further inflation.
I also foresee her as one term Chancellor.
Budget for economy growth? That is something rather difficult to comprehend nowadays or foreseeable future. .
You know inflation never stops right?
Right?
Yes and No. Perhaps a better way is to say how high inflation has gone since last 5 years..
That “geezer” is a Labour politician of much longer standing than the party leader, doing anything he can to help the campaign.
Not the point. Was he elected? No. Is he security cleared? No. Has he paid an enormous sum of money which some would argue might allow influence over the party and the Prime Minister? Well, yes.
Everything they do seems miscalculated, irresponsible and needless
This +loads
Labour certainly aren't without fault!
But...
No fault eviction legislation, decisive action assistant rioters, long term strategy for the NHS, minimum wage increase, house building strategy, ban on new North Sea oil drilling, actively engaging with the EU, security pact with Germany, most strikes ended with ongoing talks with nurses union to end theirs, total lack of the tofu culture wars... Theres nuance behind much of that of course but it's a damned decent start imo.
It's not sexy maybe, doesn't make for emotive headlines but it's still important.
The sensible answer is view access to the internet as a standard utility and nationalise it.
When I last canvassed, the two things in order of most unpopular on the doorstep (West Yorkshire) was Corbyn, and then Govt owned Broadband.
I foresee further inflation.
If anything inflation in the short term will go down, Oil has never been cheaper than it is now, and at over a million barrels of over production, and the possibility of wider regional war in the middle east, it's predicted to go down again over the next coupe of years .
But…
The problem isn't what Labour are doing (or not doint), it's how they're communicating it and the effect that's going to have on their re-election chances. Starmer and Reeves seem to be revelling in being massively unpopular. They probably think that shows they are doing a good job of governing, but running a technocratically efficient and serious administration isn't going to get them elected again, and with that they will lose the opportunity to implement the sort of lasting change they claim to want. Much like the Blair govt, the Starmer govt is going to be an enormous missed opportunity, and it's going to tee up a dystopian future tory-reform govt who will turn the UK into a reactionary culture-war hellscape.