Forum menu
"just over a third of the 2,000 firms it spoke to said they planned to reduce their headcount through redundancies or by recruiting fewer workers."
So a third of businesses laying-off, not investing and not recruiting anyone is a good thing then?
Neither good nor bad, just normal. At any one time you'd expect some businesses to be doing well and growing, while others will be struggling and cutting back.
The fact that a clear majority are maintaining or growing their workforce despite all the noise and fear mongering sounds like a good result to me.
To be honest I'm sceptical about any of these forward looking surveys anyway. It's in the interests of business to claim they're struggling. It's like asking them "do you think you'd benefit from a tax cut". Of course they're going to say yes.
I prefer to wait for the official employment stats, which are out tomorrow. My guess is that unemployment won't have changed much, and will still be below historical averages.
.It's in the interests of business to claim they're struggling.
Of course it isn't, it hardly inspires investment and consumer confidence to claim that your business is struggling.
Businesses are perfectly prepared to express optimism if they feel the conditions justify it. As they did at the end of last year :
Businesses optimistic about revenues and hiring in 2025
"Nearly three quarters of firms surveyed expect a higher turnover than a year ago, and are confident in the government’s plans to boost the economy"
However they are no longer optimistic and in fact the opposite - they are quite pessimistic.
UK firms mull biggest layoffs in a decade as business confidence slumps
In a fresh blow for the chancellor, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), which represents human resources professionals, said a survey of 2,000 employers showed redundancy intentions at their highest level in 10 years, barring the Covid pandemic.
The official employment stats out tomorrow won't show that for obvious reasons but according to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development survey the last time things was this bad Nick Clegg was deputy prime minister, so quite a long time!
So one survey says 'almost 3/4' (actual reported number 70%) of firms are optimistic and another different survey 6 weeks later says 'almost a third' (actual number 32%) are pessimistic.
However they are no longer optimistic and in fact the opposite - they are quite pessimistic.
No. Within margin for error nothing has changed in those stats, 70/30 vs 68/32. I don't see a 2% change as 'complete opposite', by any means?
Interesting too that two of the three reasons cited for lack of confidence is the increased national minimum wage and the worker rights bill. Those are good for the less well off and to be welcomed, surely?
Wow, I think that muffin-man hit the nail on the head with this : "But as with any statistic it can be read anyway the reader wants it to read"
Those are good for the less well off and to be welcomed, surely?
And who exactly is claiming that it shouldn't be? I challenged this comment: "It's in the interests of business to claim they're struggling." by providing a Times newspaper headline which appears to contradict that statement :
Businesses optimistic about revenues and hiring in 2025
Personally I would be very suspicious of a Labour government which enjoys strong support from a business community. There is after all a very good reason that it is called the "Labour" Party and not the "Business" Party.
However the current Labour Chancellor appears to desperately want support from the business community, otherwise why would she say this :
Labour vows to be the most ‘pro-business government’ UK has ever seen
The most pro-business government the UK has ever seen? Really?......... even more pro-business than any previous Tory government?
Is there something wrong with a Labour government being pro business?
Ultimately the average working person needs more money in their pocket and that comes from their employer , or tax cuts and I can't see that happening . Pay rises are only going to happen if the company they work for is doing well so a Labour government should be pro business.
The big question for me is can Labour ensure that , should it happen, all this economic growth benefits everybody and not just those at the top of the tree .
You are assuming that people that run companies that are assisted by pro business policies are going to pay their workers the rewards of them doing better rather than pay themselves more or be concerned about shareholders. The simple fact we need a minimum wage suggests a lot of businesses don’t want to pay their workers more
I think pro-business can mean different things.
On a macro level pro-business usually means conditions working for the profits at the expense of the worker.
But pro-business could mean supporting smaller businesses through training and grants etc.
As a business owner I am seeing nothing - other than decaying customers and apathy, which is the results of years poor quality support - and lightening from clients.
We are very much in a downward spiral until new money kickstarts the economy.
Private debt will be the end-game here.
(I see Reeves has been stopped in her intervention in the car loans fiasco. Great news. She really needs to wind her neck in.)
But as with any statistic it can be read anyway the reader wants it to read
Indeed. Including apparently reading two polls showing 70/30 support and 68/32 support as being 'complete opposite' to each other.
Personally I would be very suspicious of a Labour government which enjoys strong support from a business community.
Maybe optimistic but why not both - support for businesses to grow and thrive while at the same time protecting workers' rights and pay so they get a share of the growth. 70-odd % of businesses feel optimistic about the future despite the latter coming in, so maybe it's not pie in the sky thinking. The other 30-odd %, I feel for but there is stuff being done for small businesses as well as workers.
(excuse direct link - expediency rather than finding a reported view)
https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/how-labour-is-helping-small-business/
It all depends what trust you put in companies to do the right ting for employees when any pro business policies help the company.
Do they just take the money, do the shareholders get more money or do wages increase. Given the fact we need a minimum wage in the country suggests many businesses are happy to pay as low as they can.
Maybe pro worker would work out with a happier and more productive workforce?
ONS stats are out and they show wages continuing to rise above inflation and unemployment unchanged. Excellent news on both counts. Still no sign at all of all these hiring and pay freezes we've been repeatedly told about.
This is normally the part where I remind the thread that the majority of businesses in this country employ just a couple of folks, or are single operator/owned by the business owner.
Is there something wrong with a Labour government being pro business?
Well if you are going to ask that question you should perhaps also ask why industrial democracy wasn't in "Labour's" election manifesto.
ONS stats are out and they show wages continuing to rise above inflation and unemployment unchanged. Excellent news on both counts. Still no sign at all of all these hiring and pay freezes we've been repeatedly told about.
Shits not properly hit the fan yet - the NI changes don't take effect until April! Let's see where we are at the end of the year shall we.
Don't get me wrong I want Labour to succeed - I did vote for them - but I've been in business to long and know the warning signs. One of my customers is already planning to pull the plug at the end of summer. They are a summer tourist business, she's struggled through this winter but knows she can't ride another one out.
A joinery company owner came in last week for some plan prints - I asked him if he was busy and he said 'thankfully, yes'. I was surprised by that and he said he knew of several joiners who had no work on at all.
The ONS aren't talking to this type of business person.
...and let's see how happy you are when Rachel Reeves come for your ISA and Pensions. Trump is wrecking the US by being a ****, she will wreck the UK by being inept.
ONS stats are out and they show wages continuing to rise above inflation and unemployment unchanged. Excellent news on both counts. Still no sign at all of all these hiring and pay freezes we've been repeatedly told about.
Shits not properly hit the fan yet - the NI changes don't take effect until April! Let's see where we are at the end of the year shall we.
...and let's see how happy you are when Rachel Reeves come for your ISA and Pensions.
We've been repeatedly told that the budget was already having a negative effect on wages and unemployment. The actual evidence suggests that's not the case.
As for ISA's and pensions, we were repeatedly told that Reeves would 'come for them' in the budget. Didn't happen.
All this fear mongering, all this stuff about bad things that are apparently going to happen - none of it, not a single bit of it has actually happened. People will come to their own conclusions.
I see that even the Financial Times describes the CIPD survey as "gloomy", in fact it describes it as the latest in a string of gloomy surveys.
Quarter of UK employers plan to cut jobs before tax rises bite, report finds
https://archive.is/2025.02.17-001440/https://www.ft.com/content/95b33f6b-9e5f-41fe-9dcc-bb43ecab6107
The CIPD’s report is the latest in a string of gloomy surveys reflecting worries over looming tax increases, stagnant economic activity and growing global trade tensions.
Perhaps someone should point out to the FT that if you rejig the figures it's not actually that gloomy at all. Certainly no worse than at the end of last year.
Excellent news on both counts. Still no sign at all of all these hiring and pay freezes we've been repeatedly told about.
It is good news, if it's accurate, but we're warned on the ONS website that because there are gaps the data is subject to increased volatility, so don't look at them in isolation. There's a more detailed explanation below (with sources)
Increased volatility of LFS estimates, resulting from smaller achieved sample sizes, means that estimates of change should be treated with additional caution. We recommend using them as part of our suite of labour market indicators, alongside Workforce Jobs (WFJ), Claimant Count data, and Pay As You Earn (PAYE) Real Time Information (RTI) estimates. https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/uklabourmarket/december2024
Reliability of Labour Force Survey data
In February 2024, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) reintroduced Labour Force Survey (LFS) data, after issues with data. This is after only limited experimental headline data was published between October 2023 and January 2024 due to falling response rates. In December 2024, the ONS reweighted some labour market data with new population estimates. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9366/
Top judge ‘deeply troubled’ by PMQs exchange on Gaza asylum case
With both the Government and the Opposition publicly denouncing legal decisions made by judges the UK really is embracing this new global hard-right attack on the independence of the judiciary which spans from Donald Trump's United States to Viktor Orban's Hungary.
And in this particular case it is human rights, so despised by the hard-right, which appears to be the problem :
An upper tribunal judge then allowed the family to come to the UK on the basis of their right to a family life under the European convention on human rights (ECHR).
So Britain's courts recognise their legal obligations under international law but a Labour Prime Minister, and former human rights lawyer and Director of Public Prosecution no less, condemns the judges and pledges to stop a "loophole" AKA complying with international law. If anyone hard written that into the script of political drama 10 years ago it would have been dismissed as absurd.
How long now before the hard-right in the Labour Party, such as US vice president JD Vance best mate Lord Glasman, calls for the UK to pull out of the European convention on human rights as the only way to stop leftie lawyers and "progressive" judges?
Labour Lord Glasman is currently campaigning for the Attorney General to be sacked because according to him the Attorney General is hindering the executive by insisting that the correct legal processes are followed.
Lord Glasman doesn't have time for all that legal nonsense which helps to explain why he is was personally invited to attend Donald Trump's inauguration and why he is well matey with Nigel Farage.
Apparently one of the problems that the Labour hard-right have with the current Attorney General is that he is, according to them, "progressive".
Better to be conservative than push for progress eh? How long before Labour politicians denounce people for being "liberals"?
Labour peer calls for ‘arrogant’ attorney general to be sacked
An influential Labour peer has called the attorney general Richard Hermer an “arrogant, progressive fool” and called for him to be sacked, exposing a split at the heart of Keir Starmer’s government.
Good to see Starmers carefully dismissive language over Russia and the US attempting to cut Ukraine and the EU out of thier side show negotiations, and sat down with EU leaders.
Years ago I worked with a Dutch guy who had a MSc on his CV when recruited. Many years later he studied an MSc part-time, passed it and then celebrated in the pub. When asked about the MSc on his CV when he was recruited years earlier he simply said I nearly finished it so that's virtually the same as having it.
Good to see Starmers carefully dismissive language over Russia and the US attempting to cut Ukraine and the EU out of thier side show negotiations, and sat down with EU leaders.
If his direction continues and he goes for the 11% cut for public services for arms - he will seal his fate as leader. (Which he doesn't need to do. Money is available - it's the resources that are needed.)
The man is losing the plot and doing desperate things now because his personal ratings are so awful.
Nothing good is coming out of Starmer currently no matter how you dress this up.
It's somewhat satisfying to see Starmer is annoying the extreme fringes of the left, as much as the extreme right.
To me, this s a sign that he's generally playing the cards he has been dealt, as best he can.
Comrade Ernesto… can you describe for me what makes members of the present Labour Party ‘Hard Right’ given the state of politics in both the UK and the wider world at the moment?
Given that you (correctly) objected to the sixth formers of Momentum being described as ‘hard left
Maybe a sense of perspective might be in order.?
It's somewhat satisfying to see Starmer is annoying the extreme fringes of the left, as much as the extreme right.
That seems to be a curious way to get your kicks, but each to their own
It's somewhat satisfying to see Starmer is annoying the extreme fringes of the left, as much as the extreme right.
That seems to be a curious way to get your kicks, but each to their own
I'm not sure how 'somewhat satisfied' translates to 'getting kicks' in your mind.
But that's a statement for you to try to rationalise, as they are your words, not mine.
Back in reality, it seems some dislike Starmer for making sensible and measured choices in the turbulent current political environment, within the constraints of sanity.
I'm not sure how 'somewhat satisfied' translates to 'getting kicks' in your mind.
You seem to be taking pleasure from your belief that Starmer is annoying people with whom you disagree. I'm saying that it's an odd thing to take pleasure from.
Back in reality, it seems some dislike Starmer for making sensible and measured choices
It would appear that most people dislike Starmer's political choices, if the opinion polls are to be believed. I'm sure he would be pleased that you're one of the sensible few who still support him.
I'm not sure how 'somewhat satisfied' translates to 'getting kicks' in your mind.
You seem to be taking pleasure from your belief that Starmer is annoying people with whom you disagree. I'm saying that it's an odd thing to take pleasure from.
Back in reality, it seems some dislike Starmer for making sensible and measured choices
It would appear that most people dislike Starmer's political choices, if the opinion polls are to be believed. I'm sure he would be pleased that you're one of the sensible few who still support him.
Again you try to put words into my mouth.... I do not support Starmer... but i'm glad he's walking a sensible line in general terms. It's quite refeshing from the partisan views often on display here.
I simply voted for labour rather than Lib dem as my own small way of keeping the tories, or worse, reform, out.
Is it any wonder I can't take your type seriously? that's a rhetorical question, by the way, and for the avoidance of doubt, or me havng to repeat myself, my answer is no.
Back in reality, it seems some dislike Starmer for making sensible and measured choices in the turbulent current political environment, within the constraints of sanity.
I love the arrogance and blindness of this sort of statement. Just that his policies agree with your own doesnt make it nonpartisan and measured. It just shows that you yourself are partisan.
It's somewhat satisfying to see Starmer is annoying the extreme fringes of the left, as much as the extreme right.
This sadly also shows a depressing lack of understanding of basic politics where just because someone is being criticised by both the left and right it somehow makes them balanced. I mean the Bolsheviks were literally attacked by parties to their left as well as to their right during the Russian civil war. So strangely satisfying?
You then also have the problem of whether he is annoying both sides equally and also whether doing so for good reason. Sadly whilst there is plenty of evidence of him pandering to the hard right there isnt really evidence of any gestures the other way. Just like Macron he is desperate to placate the right wing loons without accepting that it is impossible and all it does is damage the support base.
Given that you (correctly) objected to the sixth formers of Momentum being described as ‘hard left"
I objected to Momentum supporters being described as hard-left......are you sure? I cannot imagine why I would give a monkeys if Momentum supporters are described as hard-left, other than it is clearly an oversimplification - they encompass a huge range of opinions.
Personally I would probably characterise most of them as soft-left but then I consider myself to be far-left so I guess that isn't entirely surprising (I reject the label ultra-leftist btw)
can you describe for me what makes members of the present Labour Party ‘Hard Right’ given the state of politics in both the UK and the wider world at the moment?
Well how would describe a highly influential Labour Party member like Lord Glasman who matey with JD Vance, Nigel Farage, and Steve Bannon, and is on advisory board of the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship, which is financed by GB News, and which staged this hard-right, anti-immigration, anti-environmental, anti-woke summit?
Badenoch and Farage to vie for attention of Trump allies at London summit
Influential rightwingers from around the world are to gather in London from Monday at a major conference to network and build connections with senior US Republicans linked to the Trump administration.
The UK opposition leader, the Conservatives’ Kemi Badenoch, and Nigel Farage of the Reform UK party, her hard-right anti-immigration rival, will compete to present themselves as the torchbearer of British conservatism.
Hard-right seems a perfectly reasonable description to me, I don't think centrist would be appropriate, do you?
These people have always been in the Labour Party, look how long Lee Anderson AKA 30p Lee was a member of the Labour Party. The thing that is changing now though is that because the Left in the Labour Party have in effect been totally defeated the hard-right sees an opportunity, especially as they can now point to the threat posed by Reform UK.
The Centrists used the threat posed by the Tories to move the Labour Party to the right now the hard-right are using the threat posed by Reform to move the party even further to the right.
And the hard-right are getting very bold as can be seen by Lord Glasman going after the rather centrist attorney general's scalp and demanding that he be sacked for being a "progressive fool". Btw the Lord Glasman (who claims Donald Trump is "pro-worker") says that he has reassured Trump that the Labour Party is not "liberal".
When you see a Labour government declaring that successful asylum seekers who make "dangerous journeys" will never ever be allowed British citizenship, and publicly agree with Kemi Badenoch that judges are wrong to consider international human rights obligations in their rulings, you have to assume that the hard-right within the Labour Party are having significant success.
I'm not sure how 'somewhat satisfied' translates to 'getting kicks' in your mind.
You seem to be taking pleasure from your belief that Starmer is annoying people with whom you disagree. I'm saying that it's an odd thing to take pleasure from.
Back in reality, it seems some dislike Starmer for making sensible and measured choices
It would appear that most people dislike Starmer's political choices, if the opinion polls are to be believed. I'm sure he would be pleased that you're one of the sensible few who still support him.
I'm not taking pleasure, what a strange thing to say.
You can invent whatever narrative you like, but to spin my words as 'taking pleasure' is simply your own twisted opinion.
Starmer has pissed off many by getting elected on a false prospectus and now even cabinet members are briefing against him and Rachel from Accounts, he's spending as much time as possible out of the country to get away from all that. He's trying to gain popularity by becoming a leader on the world stage sorting out other peoples' problems and trying to attract the votes of the flag fornicators. It's not going to work. Even the 'grown up' Labour loyalists will eventually realise that 'being open for business' etc etc is not going to benefit them and that trickle down did not occur under Thatcher and it won't now.
The main achievements of this government will be a raft of privatisation, a reduction in living standards for the many and to hand power over to Reform.
Well the inflation uptick will give pause for thought. I expected this what with energy increasing. Chasing 2% target is harmful imo.
The BoE will now go into sticky mode. So cuts will be on hold.
This is creating havoc for majority of the country now and the wider economy but you do not solve it by giving more money to rich people in savings income.
What it is not is VAT on schools - this is the biggest pile of horseshit going. Don't know who put that out there.
VAT is deleting some money from the economy so that can't drive inflation. That's less money in private hands.
It's more likely the same parents who go to private schools in super posh cars with all their demands on the limited pool of resources that isn't helping. That and the fact they will also be the same people who are getting nice returns on their savings.
Tax wealth now you absolute dumb-ass Labour party and help drive down inflation.
Sort the bloody energy situation out with some price controls or subsidies for customers.
FFS this government are badly prepared - Neoliberalism is sinking a Neoliberal party.
Doesn't matter though as instead of getting domestic affairs in order first I'm sure Keith is globe-trotting and being statesman like somewhere; talking centrist drivel about things he can't fix - and being a Nuclear War enthusiast without realising.
Judging by the guardian opinion pieces recently Starmer has also annoyed the centrists, so if you metric for success is annoying everybody that is more good news to celebrate.
This is a poll from Printweek magazine yesterday - if this is reflected across other industries then inflation isn't coming down anytime soon, all because of Reeves/Starmers inept and underhand, stealthy, sneaky NI tax rise...
https://www.printweek.com/content/news/print-bosses-mull-nics-mitigation-measures
. Don't know who put that out there.
The ONS. The cost of education services has gone from 5% to 7.5% from Dec to Jan. That cost driven by private school fees increasing by 12.7%. - borne by people who send their children to those schools. That the schools now have to pay VAT to the govt doesn't alter that. This is how inflation works.
Ernesto, up until you mentioning him I had absolutely no idea who Lord Glasman was/is. I’d never heard of him and I doubt anyone else has either. So he’s now demanding stuff? So what? Lots of people are demanding stuff. It doesn’t mean anyones listening to them.
There have always been nutters in the Labour Party. Kate Hoey always baffled me as she seemed to be a sort of female Norman Tebbit and was always sharing a platform with Farage, particularly during the referendum. And she was an actual elected Labour MP and former minister
what a strange thing to say.
But obviously not quite as strange as saying :
Back in reality, it seems some dislike Starmer for making sensible and measured choices
That is a particularly daft comment whose daftness is emphasized by claiming that it represents "reality".
No one dislikes Starmer, or any other politician, for being sensible and measured. Would you say that Kemi Badenoch's obvious lack of popularity is down to her being sensible and measured?
You might be dismissive of Starmer's lack of popularity but if it continues and he remains leader of the Labour Party it is likely to have dire consequences for Labour at the next general election and all the local elections in the meantime.
And I know a few regular posters on here who believe that winning elections is actually more important than what policies Labour adopts. At least they used to, now they don't seem to be so sure.
Btw it would appear that Starmer's lack of popularity extends beyond ordinary voters, the Labour Party is currently losing one member every 10 minutes.
Bearing in mind the reasons they are giving for leaving this will undoubtedly consolidate centrist power and push the Labour Party further to the right.
I am not sure how many will be left in the party by the time of the next general election but they will have their work cut out if they are to stop Nigel Farage becoming PM.
But maybe Starmer's cunning plan to have British troops confronting Russian forces in Ukraine (backed by a Trump backstop guarantee) will ignite patriotic fervour and pull the rug from under Nigel Farage, who knows?
Membership down 11% since election as Labour loses a member every 10 minutes
https://labourlist.org/2025/02/labour-party-membership-drop-since-general-election/
he's spending as much time as possible out of the country to get away from all that
Yeah, nothing going on internationally at the moment at all. Why doesn't he wind his neck in and put his head in good old British sand? Not that like anything happening "out of the country" will affect any of us now, is it?
Ernesto, up until you mentioning him I had absolutely no idea who Lord Glasman was/is. I’d never heard of him and I doubt anyone else has either. So he’s now demanding stuff? So what? Lots of people are demanding stuff. It doesn’t mean anyones listening to them.
Well that's surprising, not only because you are in the Labour Party but also because he is currently making the headlines in your favourite newspaper, which btw describes him as "an influential Labour peer"
Labour peer calls for ‘arrogant’ attorney general to be sacked
An influential Labour peer has called the attorney general Richard Hermer an “arrogant, progressive fool” and called for him to be sacked, exposing a split at the heart of Keir Starmer’s government.
You seem to know more about what's going on in the Tory Party than what is going on in your own party binners!
He isn’t making headlines. He’s a footnote on a ‘story’ that as far as I can tell is gossip rather than actual politics
Granted ‘Inconsequential man who nobody has ever heard of has a bit of a rant’ won’t drum up much interest. Maybe he should join us on this thread? Sounds like he’d fit right in
I would laugh at what will happen in 4 years time and the excuses the Starmer fans will be trotting out but it really won't be funny given the consequences.
What’s going to happen in 4 years time then Mystic Meg?
Given what’s going on in the world at the moment, you’d have to be mad to claim you know what’s going to happen in the next 4 days
I would laugh at what will happen in 4 years time and the excuses the Starmer fans will be trotting out but it really won't be funny given the consequences.
It wont be excuses but just blaming the nasty left wingers for not voting for the glorious leader since, after all, post election he would swing left wing vs even further right.
Honest.
What’s going to happen in 4 years time then Mystic Meg
No image of Mystic Meg, you are slipping.
What is going to happen in 4 years time is that Labour will lose the election. The government will then be Reform or Tory or a bit of both.
Keep this for posterity if you like.
Granted ‘Inconsequential man who nobody has ever heard of has a bit of a rant’ won’t drum up much interest.
So now you are accusing your favourite newspaper of dishonest headlines...... wha i's the world coming to? Who can we trust??
Obviously you have never heard of Lord Glasman because you are too occupied in attacking the left in the Labour Party than to worry about the Labour hard-right. However if you read the Guardian, which you claim to read every day, more diligently, you would realise that Lord Glasman has been discribed as influential within the Labour Party for years.
As this 13 year article in your favourite newspaper proves :
Ed Miliband's leadership attacked by Lord Glasman
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jan/04/ed-miliband-leadership-lord-glasman
Ed Miliband has come under ferocious pressure to show greater political courage after his close ally Lord Glasman said his leadership seemed to have "no strategy, no narrative and little energy".
Note :
Glasman – often described by the media as Miliband's intellectual guru
So the intellectual guru of a former Labour leader is "Inconsequential" within the Labour Party?
Also note :
He asserts that it looks as "if Labour is stranded in a Keynesian orthodoxy with no language to talk straight to people".
Which betrays the fact that he is a hard-right neoliberal who no doubt considers "Keynesian orthodoxy" to be left-wing extremism.
Mind you soft-left John Prescott [RIP] had the right attitude towards Lord Glasman :
On Twitter, however, the former deputy prime minister John Prescott said: "Glasman. You know sod all about politics, economic policy, Labour or solidarity. Bugger off and go 'organise' some communities!"
Still binners you ignore the hard-right in the Labour Party which is rubbing shoulders with the Trump administration, pushing for racist dog-whistling policies, castigating those they consider to be "progressives", and attacking the concept of government within clear legal boundaries, and instead just focus on the hard-right within the Tory Party which is doing exactly the same thing.
After all as you keep saying politics is just like a game of football which presumably means there are no "right and wrongs"
I'll leave this here
and extract this comment from the article for no particular reason at all.
The research also shows the group is more likely to dislike and criticise those that disagree with them than other voting blocs, a trait the report’s authors argue has contributed to the repeated failure of progressive campaigns and the rise of the global far right. In particular this report finds that a tendency to impose purity tests on those they will campaign with, overestimating how many people share their views
I think it is a bit of a stretch to blame the rise of the right on this group and what they see as the right thing even if they are in a minority. I also don't have a problem with immigration and I support 'woke' culture with the only difference between me and them is I know I am in a minority and am never going to win that battle. The worlr is generally on a downward spiral now and just need to wait for it to come out the other side, assuming it does.
nd extract this comment from the article for no particular reason at all.
We're surely on the same path towards fascism as happened in the 20/30s. Blaming that on loony leftists is laughable though. The pre-WWII period and now share exactly the same features:-
- Massive economic inequality where working people feel disenfranchised and ignored by the state
- Oligarchic power exercised by the ultra-rich
- A comfortable and complacent middle class who think everything will carry on as it is
- A growing underclass of immigrants, unemployed and 'spongers'.
It's got bollocks all to do with lefty chip on the shoulder types who don't like talking to tories.
Let's be fair... many people have seen a noisy minority on the right shift public opinion, change laws, build up barriers between countries, and divide countries... the idea that some of that can (and should) be done in the other "direction" is VERY seductive... but it ignores that fact it's not about "numbers" it's about having the power, money and contacts to force your views into the mainstream... these right wing groups might successfully paint themselves as grassroot movements (hell, even Trump and Musk get to claim this), but they are normally anything but.
Keynes was a Liberal and his 'orthodoxy' was created as a bulwark against the socialist mood of the period. To see his ideas as extreme reflects how much to the right the LP has shifted. How they can't see that neoliberalism doesn't deliver for the many is completely beyond me.
How they can't see that neoliberalism doesn't deliver for the many is completely beyond me.
I think that's the perfect example of what that report is about... for 80% if the population, "neoliberalism" means little... for the remaining 20% its actual meaning is disputed even more than its value or damage.
"...using language that is inaccessible to the wider public is potentially driving a backlash against progressive causes rather than helping them to win people over."
Yep, you need to dumb it down, how about Make Britain great again?
In particular this report finds that a tendency to impose purity tests on those they will campaign with, overestimating how many people share their views
Amusingly if you read the actual report it has several comments about brexit and portraying people as simply led and even mentions accusations of racism as being the driving factor. now who on this forum does that remind you off?
Overall looking at the report its very odd.
It comes up with some extremely biased names for the various groups and also seems to accept statements at face value.
Both the references to free speech and blocking roads spring to mind. It seems more these "progressive activists" are more honest about it versus other groups who say one thing but then put in a bunch of exclusion clauses. The latest PE has this cartoon which covers it well.
Yep, you need to dumb it down, how about Make Britain great again?
Or make the same points, with real language that everyone is agreed on the meaning of.
Start with...
"Privatised water companies are taking the piss, and letting out shit... time to take them back".
Who is not saying that and what inaccessable language is being used leading people to be against it?
and Rachel from Accounts
Casual sexism doesn't help get messages across either, at least not the intended ones
What is going to happen in 4 years time is that Labour will lose the election. The government will then be Reform or Tory or a bit of both.
Keep this for posterity if you like.
How about, given your certainty on the issue Russel Grant, we stick with the time-honoured forum tradition of the pastry-based wager?
Allowing for inflation over 4 years, I reckon a thirty quid Greggs gift card is in order, yeah?
So unless you’re right and we have a Reform or Reform/Tory coalition, you have to buy me lots of pasties and sausage rolls.
You can get my address from one of the many others who’ve lost pie-based bets to me 😉
Every time someone uses terms such as "neoliberalism", they are severely limiting the reach of their message.
Is there any evidence to back up that claim?
It was previously known as Thatcherism so I guess you could return to describing it as such but firstly it isn't a political philosophy unique to the UK, and secondly it is going to mean a lot less to people who are too young to remember Thatcher.
Neoliberalism is an excellent term as it is to some extent self-descriptive. In contrast it isn't obvious that everyone called Thatcher believes in minimal regulations and the benevolent invisible hand of the market.
"Privatised water companies are taking the piss, and letting out shit... time to take them back".
You want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to use language like that in her next budget speech?
Neoliberalism is an excellent term as it is to some extent self-descriptive.
It means different things to different people (and nothing at all to most people). It's highly nebulous with no agreed meaning.
For some it is all free market ideas. For some it is deregulation. For some it is the erosion of state ownership and control of vital services and infrastructure.
Anyway, if you're using that term, you'd better be talking to those that agree with you, it's great for preaching to the converted. It's code that shuts out everyone else.
You want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to use language like that in her next budget speech?
I'd love her to. We really weren't talking about her though, at all, were we.
Anyway, taking your side step.... I'd rather she said that than talk about neoliberalism if she wants to connect to voters.
I'm pro free trade... is that neoliberalism? I'm pro free movement of people. Is that neoliberalism? It's all too vague. And, again, it's insider code.
It's highly nebulous with no agreed meaning.
Try googling "neoliberalism" the meaning is perfectly clear.
It's code that shuts out everyone else.
Do you know the meaning of code? It is not a code, it is a clearly defined political-economic theory just like Keynesian is. And the only persons it is likely to shut out are denialist who prefer to pretend that it isn't the ideological base of the current government.
The current global political battles are due to the crisis created by neoliberalism, the choice now is whether to abandon neoliberalism or double down in the hope that more of it will somehow resolve all the problems it has created.
The current UK government seems to have embraced the latter. Who would have thought that after the ditching of the Keynesian post-war consensus 45 years ago, and all the deregulation, cutting of red tape, bonfires of quangos, etc, that came with that, there would still be need for further deregulation and cutting of red tape?
Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves definitely believe it is necessary.......all those years of Tory rule with all their government regulations and red tape, eh?
I'm not taking pleasure, what a strange thing to say.
You can invent whatever narrative you like, but to spin my words as 'taking pleasure' is simply your own twisted opinion.
It's touching that you felt the need to reply to the same post three times, but really, if you meant something else, try using different words. Or carry on rubbing your thighs, but at least show some honesty.
If you can't debate without ad hominem jibes then you'll get this thread shut down.
How about, given your certainty on the issue Russel Grant, we stick with the time-honoured forum tradition of the pastry-based wager?
Allowing for inflation over 4 years, I reckon a thirty quid Greggs gift card is in order, yeah?
Make it £100 cash and you are on (I am not supporting Greggs as they are part of the poor health problem)
The bet is £100 to go to a charity of our choice that Labour will lose the next election and the winning party of the next election will be Tory or Reform or a coalition between them.
I am basing this on Labour being shit, the general rise of right wing and the people and money behind it. What are you basing your thoughts that Labour will win on?
If you can't debate without ad hominem jibes then you'll get this thread shut down.
I'm perfectly happy to debate without jibes but they're used on this thread and others as a matter of course. Is this a new moderation direction for the forum?
And, again, it's insider code.
The problem is all the terms you use are equally nebulous. For example "free trade" has multiple meanings and interpretations.
I am basing this on Labour being shit, the general rise of right wing and the people and money behind it. What are you basing your thoughts that Labour will win on?
I've not mentioned a labour win, have I? I've not predicted anything. I'm not that daft.
The old adage about a week being a long time in politics is magnified to the nth degree with Trump now in power. 4 years is an eternity. Literally anything could happen between now and 2029. Lets be honest, the entire country could be a smouldering post-apocolyptic wasteland in the grip of a nuclear winter by then.
I've not mentioned a labour win, have I?
You have inferred it. If the Tories or Reform don't win then Labour would be the winners. So why do you think Labour would be the winners? Or can't you say as they have only been in for 6 months?
You have inferred it.
Have I?
If the polls are saying anything (and I personally think they're utterly irrelevent at this point in proceedings), they're saying that the vote is so split - 4 ways - that nobody is going to get an overall majority. Like last time I suspect most people will unenthusiastically voting for the least worst option
How that vote will split when it comes to actually winning seats in out FPTP system is anyones guess. We could still potentially end up with another Labour government, another Tory one, a Reform one. Unlikely though, so thats when the horse trading starts. More likely a Lab/Lib coalition, another Con/Lib allience, a Reform/Con government or maybe something even weirder. Our political system might completely implode and we could end up having elections every other month for ever.
Who knows? I certainly don't. And I'd say if you're prepared to put money on the outcome of an election in 4 years time, in the present climate, you may as well set fire to it. I'm sure you'd find a bookie who'll happily take your money though. Good luck
So unless you’re right and we have a Reform or Reform/Tory coalition, you have to buy me lots of pasties and sausage rolls.
.
I've not mentioned a labour win, have I? I've not predicted anything. I'm not that daft.
You haven't predicted anything because you aren't that daft?
So you are actually saying that you usually bet on things that you aren't sure about.
That is definitely a new angle on the phrase "I bet you"
Ernesto... comrade... do you undertand how betting works? It would appear not.
I've not predicted anything. As I said... I'm not that daft. Hence I'm not placing bets. I'm saying that I haven't got a clue what will happen, but if you're daft enough to predict it then put something on it. Thats how this generally tends to go. Ask the bookies. They make a fortune out of people like our friend here confidently predicting that they know exactly whats going to happen, but are rarely right
And if you're looking for advice on where to place bets, the last place on earth you'd look for tips is an echo chamber of people who generally think the same way that you do, which is what every politics thread becomes when yourself and your fellow PFJ members get together 😀
I personally think they're utterly irrelevent at this point in proceedings
Your leader doesn't appear to agree with you. It is now widely accepted that a sense of panic over growing support for Reform has gripped the Labour leadership. Hence from your favourite newspaper :
On Friday, Starmer told his cabinet ministers they had to be the “disrupters if you don’t want to be disrupted”. He meant disrupted by Reform UK.
And chilling videos from the party are expected this week to show the terrible journey illegal immigrants to the UK face by buses and planes as they are deported by a government showing zero tolerance towards those whose asylum claims are rejected.
do you undertand how betting works? It would appear not.
Yes I understand how betting works. What I don't understand though is why when debating politics you constantly come up with stuff like this "you have to buy me lots of pasties and sausage rolls"
What is the point of that if it doesn't reflect something that you are certain about? Generally speaking when two people have two opposing opinions and one says "I bet you...." it is generally to emphasis that they are certain about something.
If that isn't the reason that you do it what is your reason? Is just to remind everyone of your hilariously unhealthy "working-class" diet?
Anyway... getting back on topic away from William Hill.....
In the same way that Covid made short work of Boris Johnsons agenda (such as that was) and huge majority, I'd say that having Trump swaggering about, tearing up the post-war, rules-based world order is going to have a similar effect on the immediate future.
Its going to be how Starmer and this government is going to be judged is on how it responds to that. Lets face it, post-Brexit, this country is in an absolutely terrible position, caught in the middle of an international trade war, alone and friendless. Theres a whole world of 'Unknown Unknowns' out there right now, all of which are about to have an enormous impact on the UK economy
I certainly wouldn't fancy his job. Would you? At least, compared to the previous few years, we do seem to have a grown up in charge
this country is in an absolutely terrible position,
With relatively low inflation and unemployment, and no recession, the UK has been in much worse positions on multiple occasions in the last 50 years.
I totally agree that being UK Prime Minister is an extraordinarily difficult job though. Being Leader of the Opposition is always going to be much easier. Especially when the government is totally inept.
And I'd say if you're prepared to put money on the outcome of an election in 4 years time, in the present climate, you may as well set fire to it. I'm sure you'd find a bookie who'll happily take your money though. Good luck
I don't need to find a bookie. You offered the bet/wager. "How about, given your certainty on the issue Russel Grant, we stick with the time-honoured forum tradition of the pastry-based wager?" and now seem to be reneging on it. So £100 to a charity of our choice - you win if Labour win, I win if Labour lose.