Forum menu
and now seem to be reneging on it.
Can't a man change his mind? Starmer has done it loads of times.
It's what grown-ups do. Apparently.
On the basis that Binners offered a bet of a £30 Greggs voucher 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"
and you've now turned it into a £100 bet that Labour will lose, with no proviso on the winner, it's hardly reneging on the bet. It's a different bet, and one that he's perfectly entitled to decline. 'Changing your mind' when circumstances change seems an entirely proportional and grown up thing to do.
But if you are allowed to change the terms and consider that failure to agree is 'reneging' - I assume he can counter by betting you £500 that the next PM won't be a Martian. Don't go weaselling out now.....
you've now turned it into a £100 bet
Now the steaks are too high!
(bad cow pun)
surely the steak bakes?
So you are actually saying that you usually bet on things that you aren't sure about.
Erm... yes. Unless you're a member of a shadowy and terrifying Mafioso betting syndicate, who's paid somebody a large bung to take a dive in the fifth, lest members of their family might meet with an unfortunate accident, thats generally how betting works, yes.
You should have a word with Mrs Binners about how it works. Her betting is generally so successful (unlike mine), I'm beginning to suspect that she may indeed be a member of a shadowy and terrifying Mafioso betting syndicate.
Your understanding of the gambling industry seems so limited and confused, I suspect if I left her in your company for the aftenroon, by the end of the day she'd end up owning your house 😀
Your understanding of the gambling industry seems so limited and confused
I think my understanding of the gambling industry is probably a bit more than you give me credit for. As is my understanding of what people mean when in the midst of a disagreement with someone they say "I bet you...". It is very obviously to emphasis that they feel certain about something.
And if you can't see that then it suggests a fairly limited understanding of the English language and how it is used in everyday speech.
Anyway I think the psychology behind references to gambling has been done to death, getting back to the original point I actually totally agree with you, ie it is totally impossible to predict any general election, and not least one over 4 years away!
It is however perfectly possible and reasonable to predict likely possibilities, for example it reasonable to assume that the LibDems won't win the next general election and it won't result in a LibDem prime minister.
Likewise it is becoming increasingly likely that the largest party after the next general election will be Reform UK and that astonishingly Nigel Farage will become PM.
I still think that on balance that probably won't happen because I suspect that Nigel Farage is simply too toxic for the average UK voter, according to polls Farage is apparently almost as unpopular as Keir Starmer, so when push comes to shove voters will I suspect loose their bottle. Hopefully.
But right now support for Reform UK is not only unprecedented but growing, whilst support for Labour has very clearly collapsed. As the very latest poll out today shows :
https://twitter.com/FindoutnowUK/status/1892534191369138269
for example it reasonable to assume that the LibDems won't win the next general election and it won't result in a LibDem prime minister.
Do you reckon? I've not ruled out that in 4 years time a bungee jumping Ed Davey will be seen by many as the sanest adult in the room.
Likewise it is becoming increasingly likely that the largest party after the next general election will be Reform UK and that astonishingly Nigel Farage will become PM.
In your head, maybe?
Would you be prepared to bet a 30 quid Greggs voucher on that outcome though?
I’d suggest a safe hedging bet against that would be on Reform imploding before the next general election and the Man Frog leading another Limited Company owned entirely by himself into the vote instead
Odds between those two outcomes? Evens, I reckon
Do you reckon? I've not ruled out that in 4 years time a bungee jumping Ed Davey will be seen by many as the sanest adult in the room.
I am frankly astonished how low support for the LibDems has been since the last general election, you would expect them to be raking in the votes. As it is their support appears to be about the same as it was in the general election and about half of what it was 15 years ago.
In your head, maybe?
No not in my head, in reality. About a month ago the shocking news was that Reform was just one point behind Labour, now almost all the opinion polls are showing Reform in front of Labour.
The reality is that support for Reform is growing and it looks increasingly likely that they will be the largest party at the next general election. Which is presumably why the Labour leadership is panicking and now resorting to dog-whistling racism.
I’d suggest a safe hedging bet against that would be on Reform imploding before the next general election and the Man Frog leading another Limited Company owned entirely by himself into the vote instead
Luckily you don't predict anything eh? And yeah parties who support is growing massively and are riding high in the polls tend to 'implode', in your head 😜
I can speculate on anything I like Ernesto, same as anyone else. The point I’ve made is that it’s exactly that… idle rambling. I wouldn’t be stupid enough to regard it as anything other than brainfarts and stick any money on it.
Polls taken 4 years out from an election are utterly pointless. They amount to nothing more than speculation really. To use another betting reference… It’s like watching Spurs score in the first 5 minutes of a game, then immediately sticking all the money you have on them winning after 90 minutes.
You’d have to be mad!
Anyroadup… while we’re discussing this apparent upcoming Tory/Reform Reform/Tory government….
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/conservative-chief-whip-reveals-senior-34717396.amp
Might have been his first time at an orgy - you can get nervous at these events*!
💩
🤣
(*so I've been told!)
Do you reckon? I've not ruled out that in 4 years time a bungee jumping Ed Davey will be seen by many as the sanest adult in the room.
Being seen as the sanest adult in the room is so last century.
Polls taken 4 years out from an election are utterly pointless.
Well obviously they aren't which explains why clients pay good money to pollsters to carry them out, why you were ranting about Corbyn in 2017 despite the fact that it was potentially still five years away from a general election, and why the Labour Party are currently now panicking over Reform's lead in the polls.
Opinion polls only become "utterly pointless" when their findings don't back your preferred narrative.
I won't name names but I remember people on here celebrating when Labour under Starmer first managed to achieve a 2% lead over Boris Johnson's Tory government, that was several years before the general election.
Now a six point lead by Reform over a Labour government is dismissed as of no importance! Oh the hypocrisy 🤣
Do you want to know a little secret Ernesto? And it involves betting again…. Sorry….
When Theresa May had a 20% poll lead over Jeremy Corbyn and called an election, while I was busy winding you and the rest of his disciples up on here saying she’d get a 200 seat majority, I actually stuck a tenner on ‘no overall majority’ at 9/1
I quite enjoyed watching the results come in that night* as I also had another tenner on my constituency going from the Tory’s to Labour at 5/1
Gobbing off on an Internet forum is one thing, sticking money on stuff is another thing entirely.
Don’t ever start gambling comrade and don’t ever pay attention to opinion polls 😃
* not as much as I would have done if there had been a Labour leader who wasn’t a complete idiot, and who would have walked it against Mays clueless campaign
- I won't name names but I remember people on here celebrating when Labour under Starmer first managed to achieve a 2% lead over Boris Johnson's Tory government, that was several years before the general election.
On the day magic grandad finally, 2 years later than he should have done, shuffled off to his allotment, Labour were 24 points behind in the polls, so a 2% lead represented a 26% swing.
He then built on that to turn a 80 seat Tory majority into a Labour majority of 174
I know it upsets you sixth form PFJ members, who would prefer the Labour Party to be an ideologically pure, student, placard-waving group rather than a serious political party, but some of us would like to live in a country without a permanent Tory government thanks.
Nobodies stopping us talking about Venezuela comrade. We can still do it without the conservatives in power
To the glorious revolution!
So now you are suffering from false memory syndrome. I have no idea when you placed your bet but despite the centrists best attempts to undermine Corbyn 'every single day' the polls changed significantly when Labour launched their election manifesto :
https://www.wired.com/story/election-polls-labour-conservative-winner/
Presumably you think that Labour might pull a rabbit out the hat in the final weeks of an election campaign but although there are obvious exceptions ruling parties rarely do that, they are generally judged on their performance in government,
If Labour stands any chance of reversing what must surely be an unprecedented low of support for a Labour government (25% FFS) it needs to start pulling rabbits out hats right now.
I know it upsets you sixth form PFJ members
I see you have taken note of Mark's comment :
If you can't debate without ad hominem jibes then you'll get this thread shut down.
some of us would like to live in a country without a permanent Tory government thanks.
Tell me about it
If Labour stands any chance of reversing what must surely be an unprecedented low of support for a Labour government (25% FFS) it needs to start pulling rabbits out hats right now.
No it doesn’t. It needs to stick to a longer term plan that delivers proper results over years rather than reach for gimmicks that just cater to tomorrows tabloid headlines. We’ve had quite enough of that over recent years and just look where it’s got us
I see you have taken note of Mark's comment
Oh give over. Do you need a hug comrade? You know I love you Ernesto 😃
More good news to go with the 70-odd % of firms that are positive about the future.
Gobbing off on an Internet forum is one thing, sticking money on stuff is another thing entirely.
So seeing as you have gone quiet on the bet you started I take that as you just continuing to gob off on the internet then.
Loser pays £30 to charity of their choice (dropped back to £30 so you can't renege although I am still not giving money to Greggs).
The bet is that Labour will lose the next election and Tories, Reform or a Tory/Reform coalition will replace them. If that happens, I win and if it doesn't happen you win.
You are expecting Labour to come up with long term plans that turn the public around in 4 years whereas I am expecting interference from billionaires and continued rise of right wing sentiment to result in Labour not having a chance.
Oh give over. Do you need a hug comrade? You know I love you Ernesto 😃
I didn't take it personally. I took this as a general insult directed at anyone who doesn't share your enthusiasm for Starmer's right-wing policies:
I know it upsets you sixth form PFJ members, who would prefer the Labour Party to be an ideologically pure, student, placard-waving group rather than a serious political party
When it comes to politics you obviously find puerile and patronising insults far easier to come up with than coherent arguments, which is obviously going to make it a tad difficult for you to comply with Mark's request to "debate without ad hominem jibes".
I am not complaining mind, I find your need to rely on ad hominem jibes hugely reassuring..... You obviously recognise the weakness of your arguments. And to be fair with all the will in the world I couldn't do a better job of defending Keir Starmer than you do 😉
You obviously recognise the weakness of your arguments
I don't think that's what's happening here. I don't like binners's language but he has a.point. What he means with the 6th form jibes is that he thinks you are being naive and I tend to agree.
There are three separate things going on here that people seem to confuse:
- What we need, ideologically
- What the current government can actually deliver
- What the electorate will tolerate or favour at the next election.
Starmer can't change the political landscape in 4 years. I think that to think otherwise is naive. The absolute top priority for Labour right now is to create the conditions for relection in 4 years time. I don't think it's going particularly well, but that just demonstrates how effective they aren't. Given that, I think moving the country's significantly to the left is beyond them. In much the same way as I would love to see Wales hammer Ireland tomorrow, but realistically all I can hope for is some good play whilst being hammerd.
and while others argue about how to argue, more news about consumer confidence.
Also, looking round at the current crop of world leaders, I can't see many I'd rather have than Starmer. I mean for some unfathomable reason the bar isn't high but which country head is doing a superior job? I mean Germany, Italy - nope! France, erm why not crash your administration.....US well obvs nope, South Korea...that coup thing wasn't ideal was it. Canada, Australia the list goes on and on of countries that have awful goverments making bad bad decisions.
I think we should support this government as much as we can because I can only see worse alternatives.
who would prefer the Labour Party to be an ideologically pure
I don't think the labour party could be less ideologically pure than it is at the moment. It's completely devoted to neoliberal monetarist economic management and will not consider anything different despite 40 years of evidence that it doesn't work. I'd much rather they were more evidence based and pragmatic but that's something that's too radical apparently.
Fascinating how politics can lose its political content. So we get 'the grown-ups are in charge' ie let's infantilise ourselves, be obsequious and deferential to the big people, it might all be ordure but it's worse elsewhere, their hands are tied (except for military expenditure), planning for the long run (jam tomorrow). What about addressing actual issues that confront people here and now like housing, the cost-of-living, deregulated labour markets, the NHS and education? People voted for change and improvements in living standards not just about getting elected to a nice little earner. The saddest thing is when you get people who've clearly not benefited from the system much being such sneering and aggressive defenders of it.
and while others argue about how to argue
Who's arguing? Mark made a comment :
If you can't debate without ad hominem jibes then you'll get this thread shut down.
I am not arguing with that and I am not aware of anyone who is. Personally I think it is well overdue. Maybe if there was less ad hominem jibes political threads wouldn't be quite the echo chambers that they clearly are.
I can pretty much guarantee that any comment which doesn't fit comfortably into the preferred narrow narrative of stw will be met with a barrage of personal attacks.
Try posting something expressing support for the Tories and see how long it is before the personal attacks start.
People voted for change and improvements in living standards
Which is what Labour believe they will deliver, so people should get what they voted for. Expecting everything to be peachy within 6 months after 14 plus years of running everything down is unrealistic at best.
Not surprisingly 'fixing' the UK isn't a simple or quick task, most voters have little to no understanding of the complexity of running a country (and why should they).
We've done this to death, the bottom line is the lefties don't like Starmer because he's not their messiah, so everything he does and stands for must be wrong. The average person in the street is still struggling with the after affects of Liz Truss (that will take decades to overcome unless we either have massive deflation or huge wage rises, both of which would crash the economy) so they aren't happy either. What's the real alternative, tax the rich and spend spend spend? Not really a credible policy. Get control of the international corporations, OK I'm onboard with that, except we're not big enough to be able to do that on our own. If we were still in Europe then maybe we could have tackled that but the left were as keen to come out as the right.
I can pretty much guarantee that any comment which doesn't fit comfortably into the preferred narrow narrative of stw will be met with a barrage of personal attacks.
The echo chamber for most of us is the half a dozen people who post bomb any political thread which is the equivalent of shouting. As for the personal attacks, maybe stop with the centrist jibes, yes we know you don't like us because we're not let wing but that doesn't mean our views should be derided all the time. That may not be your intention but it certainly feels that way.
Also, looking round at the current crop of world leaders, I can't see many I'd rather have than Starmer. I mean for some unfathomable reason the bar isn't high but which country head is doing a superior job? I mean Germany, Italy - nope! France, erm why not crash your administration.....US well obvs nope, South Korea...that coup thing wasn't ideal was it. Canada, Australia the list goes on and on of countries that have awful goverments making bad bad decisions.
I think we should support this government as much as we can because I can only see worse alternatives.
While I agree most governments are shit at the moment, it's not universally true and so simply supporting the current government because everyone else seems to be equally shit seems like giving in and accepting the fact the Tories have won, regardless of which particular brand of Tory happens to be in charge at this particular moment.
Spain has been popping up on my radar for the past six months or so with various articles saying variations of, 'Hey, Spain seems to not be doing shit. Weird!'
https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/12/12/spain-shows-europe-how-to-keep-up-with-americas-economy
https://www.ft.com/content/eac9c198-1b33-418d-a239-a05538bd0056
But yeah, it's probably politically impossible for Labour to recreate any semblance of this success so let's just support them as the continue to do the opposite of what is being proven to work. The most important thing is to keep the sixth-formers out of government.
'the grown-ups are in charge' ie let's infantilise ourselves, be obsequious and deferential to the big people
Wow no that is absolutely not what that means. When we want grown-ups in charge it means we want people who actually know how to run a country, rather than play at it to boost their own egos.
I am absolutely deferential to economists when it comes to economics, because I am not an economist. Similarly I defer to those in the civil service or foreign office who have experience in the areas in which they work. I don't think that's infantilising, is it? In fact, I think the 'how dare you tell me what to do' thing is actually immature and pretty damaging to politics anywhere in the world.
I predict that you will reply to this saying 'oh so you advocate just doing nothing and letting everyone else spoon-feed you' well no, I don't, I advocate understanding where you and I fit into this process.
What about addressing actual issues that confront people here and now like housing, the cost-of-living, deregulated labour markets, the NHS and education?
Well they have been trying to push a big house building programme. Their whole 'grow the economy' thing is to provide more money for the NHS and education (bigger economy should equal more money for public services and better standards of living) so yeah, if you pay attention they are attempting to do the things you are asking for.
The government have been pretty quick to talk of increasing the military budget by billions and cutting benefits by billions, particularly for the disabled. It seems they can be super swift when they want to be.
I see Rachel from Accounts has just picked up a nice bung from one of the Sainsburys but I imagine that falls within 'the rules'.
'Grow the economy' is the current euphemism for 'trickle down'. It ain't gonna happen. If you really want to grow the economy, redistribution is the way forward. Put money into people's pockets so they can spend it, make housing more affordable to facilitate labour mobility, improve health and life expectancy by bringing down the Lorenz curve.
The average person in the street is still struggling with the after affects of Liz Truss (that will take decades to overcome unless we either have massive deflation or huge wage rises, both of which would crash the economy) so they aren't happy either.
No they aren't. Truss had no long term affects at all as she was helped out of her mess. The average person in the street is struggling because money continues to go upwards and nothing Labour have planned is going to change that. That is what leads me to my prediction that Labour have already lost the next election. People have already forgotten how shit the tories were and now just have to live with how shit Labour are. They will find out how shit Reform, or Tory (again) are after they vote them in.
What about addressing actual issues that confront people here and now like housing, the cost-of-living, deregulated labour markets, the NHS and education?
What are they supposed to do, rustle up a few million houses, a few hundred hospitals and schools and maybe a nuclear power station?
Is it not patently obvious that these things take time?
In terms of what they have done, set things in motion to improve workers rights, created millions more NHS appointments, increased the minimum wage, careful economic management to ensure no more Tory inflation chaos and so on and so forth.
They've been excellent so far. Failing to please radical extremists and low information poll-responders doesn't change the fact that they're doing a fundamentally good job.
The Tory inflation chaos would have happened just the same if Labour were in government as it was not caused by the tories. Careful economic management is good if you want steady state - I don't think a lot of people want steady state, they want changes. Banging on about a £20 billion blackhole is irrelevant to most people.
As for the personal attacks, maybe stop with the centrist jibes, yes we know you don't like us because we're not let wing but that doesn't mean our views should be derided all the time
So you see the term "centrist" as some sort of jibe do you? It is an internationally recognised and widely used term to describe a political position. "Placard waving 6th formers" is not a recognised term to describe a political position and is very clearly a jibe
I use the term 'centrist' to describe Starmer and his cabinet because it is a perfectly fair description, the suggestion that I should stop using it is absurd. As would be the case if I was demanding that no one used the term Leftie.
You can't even provide me with an alternative term to describe the political position of the current Labour government. My preferred description would be Tory-Lite but I recognise that would be unnecessarily provocative and I have sufficient confidence in my arguments not to go down that road, so I use centrist as a very polite alternative.
but that doesn't mean our views should be derided all the time
You really don't understand what "ad hominem" means do ? I blame Mark for using Latin, although I understand what it means despite only having gone to an inner-London comprehensive. I didn't even have to Google it!
There is nothing wrong with playing the ball, that is precisely what political discussions are all about. Just cut out the personal shite and don't play the man was the suggestion.
Banging on about a £20 billion blackhole is irrelevant to most people.
And of zero consequence to a government's finances real spending power.
Centrist thinking is getting us to the place we are now - that thinking is ruinous on so many levels and has not, and will not deliver anything of significant utility. In fact - it fails to put a stop to all the shoddy trickle-down nonsense.
The Tory inflation chaos would have happened just the same if Labour were in government as it was not caused by the tories. Careful economic management is good if you want steady state - I don't think a lot of people want steady state, they want changes. Banging on about a £20 billion blackhole is irrelevant to most people.
We had the highest inflation in the G7. The difference between us and all those other countries was that we had the tories. More than a decade of Tory incompetence left us particularly vulnerable. We'd still have had inflation with labour, but I don't think it would have been as bad.
Yes many people wanted change from the Tories, and that's what they're getting. If they wanted radical change they'd have voted for a radical party - but they didn't. In fact they voted for a party that was about as middle of the road as you can get.
Labour are doing exactly what they said they would. Things take time. Some people are impatient, but that's just a consequence of the desperate situation the Tories left us in.
Taking the winter fuel allowance predictably upset a generation who are used to being pandered to. Some of them are upset and saying they'll vote reform as some kind of weird punishment thing. Boomers eh? What can you do. They'll come round when it's clear how much the NHS has improved I'm sure.
What the government could do, as in Scotland I believe, give tenants more security and a defense against endless rent increases and threats of eviction. There's been a landlord's revolution in England and everyone else is paying for it. Can't build hospitals and power stations over night but the process can at least be started (it won't).
Look north of the border where the devolved government without most of the economic levers manages to have better protection for tenants. No bedroom tax. Mitigated the two child benefit cap and are going to remove it completely . A better performing health service. Less tax on the less well off. Much fsirer assessment of disability benefits. Much reduced contracting out etcetc.
All these things are perfectly possible and affordable. For England to not do them is a political choice .
Boomers eh? What can you do. They'll come round when it's clear how much the NHS has improved I'm sure.
Don't hold your breath on that one. The first thing is you have to actually notice the improvements which for most people will not be possible. Waiting 7 hours in A&E instead of 8, waiting 6 months for surgery rather than 7. You would only notice that if you experienced these things fairly often.
Labour need a few very noticeable things they can point to and people will believe/agree with if they want any chance in 4 years time.
I know it upsets you sixth form PFJ members, who would prefer the Labour Party to be an ideologically pure, student, placard-waving group rather than a serious political party
I do believe we were asked to give the personal jibes a rest. Or you could at least try some new ones.
I know it upsets you sixth form PFJ members, who would prefer the Labour Party to be an ideologically pure, student, placard-waving group rather than a serious political party
This is such a ridiculously ignorant take as usual.
Labour are currently the very definition of ideologically pure in pursuing the remnants of what is left of failed trick-down / Neoliberal crumbs. Trying to balance the books with insanely stupid fiscal rules - is as ideological as it gets. They made up a rules for no good reason with all the evidence that it will destroy actual societal needs.
There is nothing serious about the current Labour party - or they would have started to make an actually difference to people's lives instead of courting BlackRock etc - looking for private money instead of fixing the problem that surround us.
Not too worried though as clearly Centrism is utterly doomed and will be replaced by the thing it tried to pretend it hates.
What's the comment with 6th formers - did you read it on Ian Dunt's failed take pages? Most of us are probably well past that age.
There are some changes coming for tenants in England:
https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/social-welfare-and-housing/renters-rights-bill
This is such a ridiculously ignorant take as usual.
Yeah but to be fair "placard-waving 6th formers" is obviously a one-size-fits-all insult,
So don't expect ready-made off the shelf insults to be particularly appropriate.
Just accept the sentiments behind the insult...."I think you are wrong and don't agree with you ".
So another Kremlin apologist backs Trump getting all chummy with Putin :
Trump right to engage Putin on peace talks, says minister
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgnrg77ydjo
Imagine Jeremy Corbyn saying this :
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said there could be "no negotiated peace without Russia"
The Daily Mail and Labour centrists would be in meltdown denouncing Putin's "useful idiot".
I am fairly sure that the correct position is that there is nothing to negotiate, Russia needs to get out of Ukraine and that will bring about peace. At least that would be the correct position if Corbyn was leader.
I see the loons that don't think they're loons (looking at you Will Hutton) are talking up the big spending on defence, and its sensible multiplier effect. Sigh.
No mention of the markets shitting themselves when it comes to finding money for the military?
Why are we going around in depressing circles - society is crumbling; falling apart and we can't do anything to help it. But guess what - money for war continuation is always the sensible choice.
Scratch a Centrist commentator find a Tory waiting to get out.
The multiplier effect of spending on the NHS or many public services is immense and doesn't drag us sideways into wars - and makes the country worth living in.
The grown-ups are nothing like.
(No problem with defence spending - but let's get a few domestic things sorted yeah?)
Rearmament has long been seen as a reliable and trusted way to boost an economy. The most glaringly obvious example is the United States.
The Wall Street Crash was followed by years in which the US economy was in the doldrums, right up until things kicked off following Pearl Harbor. WW2 jump started the US economy following an unprecedented surge in US government spending.
In the case of WW2 it also had the added benefit for the United States of, thanks to geographical location, not one single US factory getting bombed whilst simultaneously the industrial infrastructure of all its main competitors was bombed and left mostly in ruins.
Then came Rock n Roll in the 1950s. WW2 was just great for the United States. There are plenty of less dramatic examples of course and whilst rearmament in the face of a perceived Russian threat might not have quite the same stimulus it could nevertheless give the UK economy a significant boost.
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said there could be "no negotiated peace without Russia"
Sounds uncontroversial. There can also be no negotiated peace without Ukraine, a point I hope UK ministers are pressing home with USA representatives. Probably all already discussed at length in the Ukraine thread.
Arms expenditure is 'waste' production in that it's not producing capital or investment goods. It removes skilled workers and investment funds from other areas of the economy which might otherwise improve standards of living. It does offset the increasing centralisation of capital and hence the declining rate of profit and this has been used as one of explanations for the post-war long boom. If you want a maximum multiplier effect, invest in areas with low import content like bricks and mortar and worry away at the housing crisis, crumbling schools and hospitals.
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said there could be "no negotiated peace without Russia"
.
Sounds uncontroversial.
Exactly. Although apparently only if that suggestion is made by a centrist politician, not if it is made by a leftie. When I suggested a couple of days ago that the only way to end this tragic war was to, among other things, address Russia's security concerns, I was told that I was an Kremlin apologist just like, allegedly, Jeremy Corbyn**
So what are the issues which you think need to be negotiated with Russia to secure peace?
Personally I don't think agreeing with Putin that Zelenskyy is dictator and that Ukraine started the war is the way forward, so what do you think that education minister Bridget Phillipson had in mind when she backed Trump and claimed that he was right to engage Putin on peace talks?
** For clarity I took that remark as theatrical hyperbole and was in no way offended by it.
If you want a maximum multiplier effect, invest in areas with low import content like bricks and mortar
I don't know how the import content of the construction industry compares with other industries but I do know that its multiplier effect is huge. New buildings stimulate the wider economy to an astonishing degree..... electrical and gas appliances, fabrics and carpets, landscaping, legal services, telecommunications, the list is endless.
The meeting between the US and Russia was not peace talks, it was a meeting of fascists to divide the spoils, it needs calling out as such rather than pandering to those regimes, a new axis of evil is being created and being the bully's sidekick hoping not be become one of victims while inflicting that pain on others is not a good position.
A bit of humour for a Monday morning....
An interesting story in Eye this week on the source of the RR scandal.
Troll call
Meanwhile, who to believe on the expense-fiddling allegations dating back to Reeves's time working at HBOS in Leeds?The story was initially put out on LinkedIn by former HBOS executive Kev Gillett, who was cited as a credible source because of his senior position in the bank. His CV shows he was "managing director, Bank of Scotland Business Banking" between December 2002 and August 2007, before later working on the bank's merger with Lloyds TSB.
This period marked the collapse of HBOS, later subject of a damning report from the parliamentary commission on banking standards titled "An Accident Waiting to Happen". Among its findings was that the bank's "culture was brash".
That would have suited Gillett. Unmentioned in reports were the words in his post after the chancellor's dobbing-in: "Now she is robbing people who've worked hard. Now she is ruining every agricultural family. Evil evil socialists."
Not that he need worry: "Thank F I live in [Portugal] and I've 77p in my [UK] pension. F the socialists," he adds – it escaping him for a moment that it was "the socialists" who bailed out his wrecked bank.
The charming Gillett can also be found dismissing people whose CVs he doesn't like as "Johnny Bullshit" and lamenting from the Algarve how the UK appears "some alien world, reported on by weird angsty, jealous, puerile journalists (aka couldn't get a real job)". That'll be the hacks now making him famous.
Yep even when they go so far economically right they still get called socialists by bankers and oligarchs, yet they still try and pander to them and go even further right. It's an abusive relationship where they will never get the love they crave until they break the repeated pattern and actually do something different.
I think we might be seeing a by-election soon which will be remembered for a very long time.
It is likely to confirm a spectacular collapse in support for Labour and an unprecedented rise in support for Reform UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/24/suspended-labour-mp-mike-amesbury-sentenced-assault
As Amesbury’s sentence is less than a year, he is allowed to continue as an independent MP during any appeals he might make, but if those appeals are unsuccessful he would then be subject to a recall petition.
The petition would be open for six weeks and 10% of voters in his constituency would need to sign it to remove Amesbury as MP. If the threshold is met it would trigger a byelection.
At the last general election Reform UK came second in the constituency
The ramping up of arms expenditure that Squeaky Starmer is proposing will coincide with a commensurate cut in expenditure on health and education. Rachel's 'fiscal rules', innit.
At the last general election Reform UK came second in the constituency
Amesbury got 22,000 and 53% of the vote and Jason Moorcroft (the Reform candidate) got 7,500 and 18% of the vote.
To be clear it's not so much that we're okay with military spending - it's the fact that they claim there is no cash for much of anything else.
The wealth effect of military spending clearly has a multiplier but spending on infrastructure would have a much larger effect as well as fixing the mess we have in our domestic lives. Should be the priority.
It's not an either or situation with government spending. The first thing they need to ask about military spending is are the resources actually available? What space is being made for those resources to go to the military instead of an other things?
Keynes' How to Pay for the War - is not about the funding it's about the resource space needed to be created to allow it to happen. What do we go without in terms of resources?
Irrespective; we are getting shafted again on energy - Labour and ofgem will stand there hands-crossed and say there's nothing we can do. (Despite promising lower bills).
There's now too many institutions not really part of the democratic process (BoE, Ofgem, OBR) that effectively control the price structure of the UK.
They need dismantling as they absolutely do not serve us and simply allow the government arms length control.
(That's not going to happen currently.)
Amesbury got 22,000 and 53% of the vote and Jason Moorcroft (the Reform candidate) got 7,500 and 18% of the vote.
Yes I had checked which is why I said we might be seeing a by-election soon which will be remembered for a very long time. Would you not agree that would be the case if we saw a spectacular collapse in support for Labour and an unprecedented rise in support for Reform?
With the present political climate and political trend, plus the fact that by-elections are often traditionally used by voters to punish the ruling party, Labour halving their vote and Reform doubling their sounds fairly feasible.
It could actually be quite beneficial for the Labour Party if it were to act as a wake-up call and they started to deal with the Reform threat in a serious and effective way.
Although in reality I suspect it would be a lesson not learnt and Labour would simply double down and continue to play Reform at their own game, with the same disastrous and predictable consequences for Labour as it had for the Tories.
The ramping up of arms expenditure that Squeaky Starmer is proposing will coincide with a commensurate cut in expenditure on health and education. Rachel's 'fiscal rules', innit.
Driving up European expenditure on defence (with its negative impact on public services) is a key element of the strategy of the far right. It will increase dissatisfaction amongst the demographic groups they wish to target, then the blame can be pinned on immigrants.
It could actually be quite beneficial for the Labour Party if it were to act as a wake-up call and they started to deal with the Reform threat in a serious and effective way.
Which is why I will probably hold my nose and vote Reform having voted Labour at the GE. But as you say, will it have the desired effect?
Driving up European expenditure on defence (with its negative impact on public services) is a key element of the strategy of the far right. It will increase dissatisfaction amongst the demographic groups they wish to target, then the blame can be pinned on immigrants.
Spot on. But European leaders are in the pit now... they really have no choice but to fall into this trap set for them. Putin has the biggest players in the world/UN on his side now, and Europe either "wastes" money on arming itself, or cedes control country by country, with millions being killed or taken.
Which is why I will probably hold my nose and vote Reform having voted Labour at the GE. But as you say, will it have the desired effect?
If you want Labour to be more like Reform... vote Reform.
Are the US, China and Russia just trying to break Europe and pick over the carcass?
We showed we can be split... what else did people expect to happen next...?
Which is why I will probably hold my nose and vote Reform having voted Labour at the GE. But as you say, will it have the desired effect?
If you want Labour to be more like Reform... vote Reform.
Not really. The more Reform are in the spotlight between now and the next GE the more chance they will be seen for what they are.
and Europe either "wastes" money on arming itself, or cedes control country by country, with millions being killed or taken.
Millions killed? Where? By who? Where's the evidence that Putin or anyone else intends on invading European NATO countries?
The problem with massive rearmourment is that sooner or later someone will want to use all these shiny new weapons and we'll talk ourselves into another world war. Europe and the UK would be much better off spending the money on public services and reducing working people's taxes so they can avoid the far right taking power. This playbook of massive military spending only leads in one direction.
And if we must spend more on weapons and armies, let the rich pay for it. A one off 5% wealth tax on anyone who has more than 10 million quid would go a long way towards it.
Not really. The more Reform are in the spotlight between now and the next GE the more chance they will be seen for what they are
If Brexit taught us anything - and Farage certainly learned the lesson - it’s that the opposite of that is in fact true. The remain campaign consistently pointing out that the ‘£350 million a week for the NHS’ figure was total bullshit actually just cemented it in peoples minds.
As for defence spending, to put things in context, Russia is currently spending 40%+ of its GDP on arms, Europes longest standing most powerful ally just went all in with Putin. The ‘fingers crossed and let’s hope for the best’ philosophy probably isn’t too wise at the moment, so the government (as with everywhere else in Europe) doesn’t really have a choice but to increase defence spending, unless it fancies being accused of criminal negligence.
The Polish and those next in line for any potential Russian expansionism are already massively increasing there’s and who can blame them?
We showed we can be split... what else did people expect to happen next...?
Indeed.
Blimey, the International Institute of Strategic Studies puts the Russian spend on arms as 5.9%. Someone needs to put them straight.
The Poles are itching for a conflict with Russia, many hatchets to bury.
Russia is currently spending 40%+ of its GDP on arms
Bollocks! Random googling suggests it's around 6%. Stop making stuff up.
Funny how one of the biggest supporters on here for Labour's 'we don't have any money' narrative is so enthusiastic about spending 10s of billions on weapons and armies. We'll be seeing Starmer in battle fatigues before long...
oh hang on..
It's 40% of public spending.
The Poles are itching for a conflict with Russia
I don't accept they are itching for it, but I think they see it as quite likely and are absolutely determined to be ready for it. The Poles are one of a list of European countries who I think will inevitably decide to develop a nuclear capability if the US completely abandon NATO and Europe. Add Finland and Sweden to the list. Maybe even Germany after decades of aversion even to nuclear power. Possibly even whatever is left of a sovereign Ukraine too. Another terrifying side effect of the path the US has chosen.
It's 40% of public spending.
I'll leave it to you to explain to binners the difference between total public spending and GDP. 😉
Obviously I meant public spending, or near 10% of their GDP.
The point is that they’re not ****ing about and now they appear to have the US if not onside, then certainly not on ‘ours’ either.
For a government to watch these events unfold over the last few weeks and not respond by increasing defence budgets would be utter madness. This is the first increase, given what’s happening, I doubt it’ll be the last. I’m sure we’ll see a fairly rapid ratcheting up across the whole of Europe. It’s probably going to be pretty lucrative to be an arms dealer in the next few years