Forum menu
Long term, water has to come back under direct control. The market makes no sense… the government is the customer… they set the regulations to fit their requirements… they limit how the regulator works… yet bill payers pay the supplier… the bills are basically taxes (no choice about whether to pay, or who to pay). Most obvious way to do this (in my opinion) is to nationalise the companies one by one. There are other options of course (private companies or non-profit orgs contracted direct to government) … but continuing to pretend that bill payers are the customers, and pretending the government is hands off, isn’t viable everywhere in England, and isn’t welcome anywhere in the UK.
Labour's loss of support among the middle aged is not driven by culture wars or immigration but rather by economic insecurity in employment and housing. 'Growth' is not likely to affect these issues neither is the rightward drift of the LP.
Starmer fans might want to watch the news right now with Trump and Vance both shouting down Zelenksy and treating him like a naughty school boy. These are the people Starmer has spent the last two days sucking up to.
Starmer fans might want to watch the news right now with Trump and Vance both shouting down Zelenksy and treating him like a naughty school boy. These are the people Starmer has spent the last two days sucking up to.
"Starmer fans" - hard to believe there are such things. I wonder how that played in the US, as I think everywhere else it must have given a terrible impression of the tangerine **** and his pet monkey.
I couldn’t agree more. How you go about renationalising a number of private companies/monopolies who are tens of billions in debt is a tough one though.
You ratchet up the regulatory environment they are in until the company goes bust then buy the remains for a quid
You ratchet up the regulatory environment they are in until the company goes bust then buy the remains for a quid
The regulator hasn't ensured that the companies have met any of the targets they set themselves in the last 30 years. Every time they are fined it comes out of water bills rather than shareholder dividends or bonuses. Just altering the rules to make sure that fines had a direct influence on the decision makers and shareholders would be a start
These are the people Starmer has spent the last two days sucking up to.
What? He should have picked a fight instead?
The alternative to not sucking up is picking a fight?
How about not offering an unprecedented second state visit to the UK....... would Trump want a fight over that?
Btw as UK PM Starmer could nominate Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, do you think he should? I mean there is little doubt that Donald Trump would love to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize and if the British government did so Trump would think that Starmer was a really great guy.....a beautiful and very intelligent guy, from a beautiful country, no doubt.
In a negotiation you give up things to get other things. At this point Trump does hold almost all the cards, so sadly playing to his ego is one of the things we have to get him onside. I wish it wasn't so, but it is. Call it sucking up if it makes you happier having another go at a politician who right now is playing his hand about as well as he can.
I have a lot of sympathy for Zelensky, the way Trump, Vance and their shill reporters went for him created the situation but he angered quickly and then lacked the political nous to pull it back. He too has an ego which he failed to keep in check.
Big 48 hours coming up, after which SKS will either be on the sidelines or one of the key leaders of the new NATO. Diplomacy is going to be high on the agenda. Would I rather have Farage, Johnson, Truss, Badenoch, or dare I mention it Corbyn trying to draw two egos like Trump and Zelensky back together?
Watch again…Zelensky never lost it, unlike his hosts.
I didn't say he lost it. I said he got angry, maybe internally, and that clouded his judgement and actions.
Yes, actions - at one point he was waving his hands dismissively, "Yes, I already heard that from Putin" - not the body language of compromise. Eye rolling. Suggesting Trump hadn't realised the moral implication, etc.
Trump, Vance and others came for a fight; he obliged.
But that's a discussion for the Trump or Ukraine thread. The point is how Starmer has and now needs to respond.
Btw as UK PM Starmer could nominate Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, do you think he should? I mean there is little doubt that Donald Trump would love to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize and if the British government did so Trump would think that Starmer was a really great guy.....a beautiful and very intelligent guy, from a beautiful country, no doubt.
That some impressive whataboutery.
Sorry Jon, agree with the rest of your earlier post, but I don’t see what you expect Zelensky to have done here.
The US under Trump, Musk and the other tech bros and oligarchs are a bigger threat to europe than Russia and Putin. They are the ones who are waging the disinformation war against us, they are the ones taking us down from the inside, they are the ones funding the far right populist, they are the ones controlling our weak willed and weak minded leaders who keep stepping further and further right to please them against the interests of the majority of the population.
Keeping sucking up to them pretending that is diplomacy is not the sensible option, it isn't the centrists fantasy grown up politics, the "cost" of the status quo has already far exceeded the cost of actually working in the interest of the population.
The line has already been crossed a long time ago, we can no longer see the "centre" we have been dragged so far right by the financial interests that control politics. The pathetic capitulation to right wing political agenda needs to stop now, not next week, next month or next year, kicking it into the long grass isn't going to find a magical solution in the future it is far too late to keep putting it off.
He too has an ego which he failed to keep in check.
He's from another culture with another language and Cyrillic script. There's probably some cross-cultural stuff that we're not aware of, not to mention the battering and exhaustion from fighting like this every single day
I don’t see what you expect Zelensky to have done here.
'Sucked up' - I'm afraid. Definitely not antagonise back - if Trump does now pull all support for sure he's the **** but we're all ****ed as a result.
"You're absolutely right Mr President, without your support we would be toast. I'm very grateful as are my people. That is why I am here, to ask for your continued support and to strike a deal that we both agree to over how we can compensate you with mineral rights.....
it's a sordid process, and negotiating with the likes of Trump only make it more so - neither of them are politicians or diplomats. It's possible to be 100% on the right side of the argument and still make a mess of being on that side.
He's from another culture with another language and Cyrillic script. There's probably some cross-cultural stuff that we're not aware of, not to mention the battering and exhaustion from fighting like this every single day
For sure. 100% T&V were in the wrong. But this is derailing the point of this subthread which is what does Starmer do now, and how can he get these two egos back into some sort of compromise.
Happy to continue the T&V vs Z discussion on the Trump thread.
That some impressive whataboutery.
Thank you. I can't however match the staggering level of hypocrisy displayed by centrists.
Don't do yourself down Ernie!
I reckon you can easily match us centralist scum for hypocrisy. For someone so enthusiastic about the glorious Brexit, what did you think would happen? You don't want ties to the EU. Farage and his mates were very clear about closer ties to the US. Surely you should be pleased with current events (Starmer having to 'suck up' to Trump)?
I reckon you can easily match us centralist scum for hypocrisy.
Well you are going to have remind of my hypocrisy which "easily" matches yours. I had no idea that you were centrist btw. The centrists I had in mind are people like Lammy who expressed outrage at Trump's last state visit and yet is now fully supporting an unprecedented second state visit. From the above link:
David Lammy, the Labour MP for Tottenham, warned that African Americans were afraid of the presidency, saying Trump was supported by the Ku Klux Klan and had white supremacists in his inner circle.
For someone so enthusiastic about the glorious Brexit, what did you think would happen?
Do you understand what the word "hypocrisy" actually means?
And when was the last time I talked about my enthusiasm for leaving the EU? It's not something which I tend to talk about as I consider it a done and dusted nonissue.
And when was the last time I talked about my enthusiasm for leaving the EU? It's not something which I tend to talk about as I consider it a done and dusted nonissue.
I think thats just burying your head in the sand. Its not done and dusted. We are still to complete the process of leaving and its still having disastrous consequences.
I think thats just burying your head in the sand. Its not done and dusted.
I love that...... I'm burying my head in the sand - we're still in the EU! 😂
Anyway what is the connection between that and the hypocrisy of centrists who created a song and dance about Trump being invited for a state visit by Teresa May, because he is such an unpleasant person, and then they themselves invite him for a never-before-heard-of-before second state visit, when he is clearly now even more unpleasant!
Or the hypocrisy of centrists like David Lammy who gives an interview to the Guardian explaining what a mistake it is to cut international aid and then two weeks later announce that it will be cut by 40%
Nothing I presume and it is just a case of mentioning my opposition to the EU when you can't think of anything else to say when I highlight centrist hypocrisy.
Yes ernie.
Iits not done a dusted. We havecstill to implement some of the most damaging parts of the withdrawl agreement.
Leaving is a process and its not finished yet
I agree with you about the rightwingers running labour
However your willful blindness over brexit distorts your thinking and yes you do have your head in the sand over it.
Talking about Centrist hypocrisy - good James O'Brien one:
He has a caller on saying they should cut Foreign-aid to increase defence spending. (Before the Starmer Jerk reaction) - O'Brien pushed quite hard against it. Logically.
A while later Labour came out with their shit-Sun-appeasing plan to cut Foreign-aid and then O'Brien was straight on air saying this was a good idea now because Starmer had err... said it.
Imagine coming into government and not having a ****ing clue what you want to do with society. Pretending being in the 'middle' is somehow a superior position without even understanding the logic of the position and its effects.
The whole idea that boring politics offers any kind of solution to rabid right-wing capitalism is absolutely measurably stupid.
That's the Labour party.
However your willful blindness over brexit distorts your thinking and yes you do have your head in the sand over it.
What do you know about my thinking over Brexit? You have absolutely no idea at all what my views on the issue are beyond that fact that I supported leave, I never discuss it, it's you that keeps banging on about Brexit, not me.
I agree with you about the rightwingers running labour
And yet you fell hook line and sinker for an attempt to divert attention away from the unprecedented hypocrisy of centrists and instead discuss my views on EU membership.
Focus on the hypocrisy of centrists pledging to increase the international aid budget by 0.2% GDP and then 8 months later cutting it by that amount.
And focus on the hypocrisy of centrists denouncing the Tories for inviting Trump to a state visit and then 8 years later inviting him themselves to a second state visit, despite the fact that it goes against accepted protocol.
Not my views on EU membership which are totally irrelevant to what is being discussed.
And focus on the hypocrisy of centrists denouncing the Tories for inviting Trump to a state visit and then 8 years later inviting him themselves to a second state visit, despite the fact that it goes against accepted protocol.
As per the Trump thread - yes, by definition hypocritical but unfortunately a hold your nose, and do what is necessary moment.
despite the fact that it goes against accepted protocol.
And how exactly do we define 'accepted protocol' in the post-truth world where the leader of the worlds largest superpower is a self-serving, thin-skinned sociopath who only responds to flattery, particularly in light of Fridays unseamly demonstration of what happens if you upset him?
Things are going to change a lot in the world in the coming years as the post cold war settlement is shredded by a bunch of constitutional vandals, so any world leader has to tread extremely carefully as they navigate the mine-strewn waters that await them.
You can slate Starmer all you like for not telling him to eff off, but I thought he played a bad hand as well as he possibly could have done.
And how exactly do we define 'accepted protocol'
I don't think it is quite as difficult as you seem to be suggesting. Apparently no elected leader has ever been the recipient of two state visits. That's the accepted protocol that I was referring to.
You can slate Starmer all you like for not telling him to eff off
So who has slated Starmer for not telling Trump to eff off?
Not offering Trump a second state visit is not the same as telling him to eff off. Especially when he would not even have expected a second state visit invitation!
The UK government could nominate Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, he would love that. Do you think they should because he loves flattery and if they don't it will look as if they are telling him to eff off?
So far so good from Starmer. Showing goid solidarity with Europe and Ukraine not allowing the UK to be split off from tbe rest of Europe and managing to remain on Trumps good side.
We will see what happens when tarrifs are applied but so far Starmer is playing a weak hand well. I suspect Trump may be more receptive to a Starmer led European initiative.
Imo its essential Starmer does ot allow the UK to be split off from the rest of Europe. Solidarity is key.
Since 1970, the UN has set a target for countries to spend 0.7% of their gross national income on overseas development assistance. The target has since been accepted by successive British governments and, after a surge in investment during the Blair and Brown years, was achieved by the UK in 2013 for the first time, and made a statutory duty in 2015.
What a contrast with the current government! When former Labour International Development Minister Claire Short claims that this is not a Labour government you can see why. All those years of hard work she put in have been completely undone in just 8 months by Starmer's government.
Thanks to Starmer and Reeves International Aid is now less than half the level it was at the time of the last Labour government.
Their only pitch now is that they are more competent than the Tories. And their latest example of that is that they have managed to cut International Aid more than the Tories did.
So far so good from Starmer. Showing goid solidarity with Europe and Ukraine not allowing the UK to be split off from tbe rest of Europe and managing to remain on Trumps good side.
We will see what happens when tarrifs are applied but so far Starmer is playing a weak hand well. I suspect Trump may be more receptive to a Starmer led European initiative.
Imo its essential Starmer does ot allow the UK to be split off from the rest of Europe. Solidarity is key.
Agreed. Whatever my reservations about Starmer's other policies/u-turns etc I think he is doing pretty well in the looking glass world the US electorate pitched us into. So far.
It would appear at the moment that the UK is considered by the Orange Crook to be the main negotiator for Europe as he sees it. So far he has neither lost his rag with Trump (God knows, most decent people would) nor alienated Zelenskyy nor allowed the UK to be split off from the relatively united European stance on Ukraine. So far.
If Starmer can walk the tightrope leading from Washington via London then Brussels to Kyiv and stay on it, it may well go down as some of the finest statesmanship of its kind.
But congratulating him on this up until now is like saying "well played" to Gary Kasparov as he'd just moved his first pawn two squares forwards. Given Trump's narcissism, power and fickleness, Putin's undying cynicism and the moral correctness of supporting Ukraine, I'm not optimistic. Trump's re-election could well be the moment labelled 'too late'.
I see that the UK's much trumpeted new ambassador to the United States and master of the dark art of brown-nosing has already gone off piste and contradicted the UK government's position :
I see that the UK's much trumpeted new ambassador to the United States and master of the dark art of brown-nosing has already gone off piste and contradicted the UK government's position :
Yep. Just saw that. It's minus half a mark for Starmer if he hadn't got his ducks in a row or now doesn't publicly bollock Mandelson for contradicting his position.
Wide support for cutting international aid to fund increased defence spending according to yougov, including among Labour voters.
It seems that most people understand that being forced to change your plans by the occurrence of unforeseen events doesn't mean you are displaying "hypocrisy". Phew!
It'll be interesting to see how much of a boost Starmer gets in approval ratings and election polling after displaying such impressive global leadership this weekend.
Wow, hold the front page, when people are asked a loaded question, ie "would you rather money was spent on international aid or defence?" they choose defence!!!
The actual choice isn't between international aid or defence otherwise Labour would not have pledged to increase the aid budget in their election manifesto only 8 months ago.
If you ask an unloaded question,.ie, "should the international aid budget be cut?" you get, unsurprisingly, a different answer.
It found that 84% of people thought the UK should not follow the lead of the US and cut overseas aid funding for women and girls.
More than half of those surveyed thought that aid spending was worthwhile if it helped to boost the UK economy (58%) and protect national security (55%) respectively, while almost two thirds (63%) thought that sending aid to poorer countries was worthwhile if it helps protect the UK against pandemics like Covid-19 or bird flu.
I guess the best bet is to decide what answer you want and then figure out a question to suit that answer.
It'll be interesting to see how much of a boost Starmer gets in approval ratings and election polling after displaying such impressive global leadership this weekend.
I'm on the edge of my seat.
The question asked was "Do you support or oppose the Government increasing defence spending by reducing spending on overseas aid?"
That's not a loaded question.
The poll you've linked to was conducted well over a month ago. Which might as well have been ten years ago as far as the issue at hand is concerned.
If you ask an unloaded question,.ie, "should the international aid budget be cut?" you get, unsurprisingly, a different answer.
I'd say YES international aid should be cut.
With caviats... I agree with international aid as a good concept, but as always the devil is in the detail...
I'm not convinced international aid often gets to where it needs to go... I suspect there is a lot of misappropriation by beneficiary countries once the money has left the UK.
So I think if we are smart, we could cut the 'gross' aid 'bill', and funnel remaining aid in a more surgical and targeted manner for a larger more beneficial 'net' effect both for the UK and the beneficiary country.
I don't think that the choice being made between aid and defence is the right one. Or a necessary one. I do agree that some things currently classed as "aid" are nothing of the sort, and should be removed from that budget.
On this framing of "where do we get the money from"... suggesting the aid budget, rather than health, education, justice... or further raising taxes, or further increasing the gap between spending tax take (commonly called borrowing)... is probably the least bad option. I still don't like it though. I'd answer no to the question "should foreign aid be cut". I'd probably still answer no to "should aid be cut to fund increases in the defence budget"... but then the question surely becomes... what would you do...?
On Starmer's responsive work on this issue (forget what was said a year ago, all countries must respond to what USA/Russia are now threatening)... I think it's the first time I've been glad that he's now PM rather than his immediate Labour predecessors or any of the other challengers to be leader back in 2019/2020. I don't think Miliband, Corbyn, Long-Bailey, Nandy, Lewis, Phillips... any of them would have handled the difficult (near impossible) diplomacy as well. Brown would probably have.
That's not a loaded question.
The poll you've linked to was conducted well over a month ago. Which might as well have been ten years ago as far as the issue at hand is concerned.
Of course it is a loaded question. It isn't simply asking if International Aid just be cut, it is asking whether it should be cut to pay for defence. It is not giving the person being asked the question any other choices, as if there are no other choices. - which is clearly not the case.
And the poll was concluded less than a week before the government announced the 40% cut in the International Aid budget, so it is perfectly topical and it took place during the time that the government were discussing the issue.
Or do you think that Keir Starmer just got up one morning and decided to cut the aid budget?
Two weeks before the announcement of the cut in the International Aid budget the UK Foreign Secretary was giving interviews arguing that cutting aid was the wrong thing to do and that the Tories had been wrong for cutting so when in government. That is clear and overwhelming evidence of hypocrisy.
It is literally the sort of thing that the word "hypocrisy" was created to describe.
Asking about policy questions in isolation will always get you different results.
"Do you think you should pay more tax?"
"Would you pay more tax to fund social care?"
Is it loaded? Or is it asking people about how policies should be balanced?
Of course it is a loaded question. It isn't simply asking if International Aid just be cut, it is asking whether it should be cut to pay for defence.
But it is asking a question about what the government has actually done. Unlike some of the other questions you quote such as the one directly linking foreign aid wth Covid prevention
EDIT A loaded question in this context would be "Would you rather not cut International aid even if it means that Russia would mount an invasion of this country."
That's not a loaded question.
The poll you've linked to was conducted well over a month ago. Which might as well have been ten years ago as far as the issue at hand is concerned.
Of course it is a loaded question. It isn't simply asking if International Aid just be cut, it is asking whether it should be cut to pay for defence. It is not giving the person being asked the question any other choices, as if there are no other choices. - which is clearly not the case.
And the poll was concluded less than a week before the government announced the 40% cut in the International Aid budget, so it is perfectly topical and it took place during the time that the government were discussing the issue.
Or do you think that Keir Starmer just got up one morning and decided to cut the aid budget?
Two weeks before the announcement of the cut in the International Aid budget the UK Foreign Secretary was giving interviews arguing that cutting aid was the wrong thing to do and that the Tories had been wrong for cutting so when in government. That is clear and overwhelming evidence of hypocrisy.
It is literally the sort of thing that the word "hypocrisy" was created to describe.
A loaded question is one which contains an implicit assumption about the respondent's beliefs. The yougov question simply asks if they support or oppose the government's decision. It contains no assumptions, therefore it's not a loaded question. If the respondent believes another option is better, they would answer that they oppose the government's decision. In fact, most people supported the government's decision.
Your poll concluded on the 5th Feb. The aid budget reduction was announced on the 25th Feb. That's nearly three weeks, and the events that took place in those three weeks were of such magnitude that they've been described by various news outlets along the lines of having "shook the world". Events of such magnitude forcing a change of policy isn't hypocrisy.
Pretending its defence or aid with regards to an actual government budget is entirely fictitious.
There is NO lack of money. Labour are just trying really hard to sell this to everyone so we can't have the nice things.
If this was the really case Starmer wouldn't be able to keep promising funds for Ukraine.
Stop with the bogus spending limits.
Have you noticed how we never get anywhere because of all this nonsense?
If the respondent believes another option is better, they would answer that they oppose the government's decision.
There's your 'implicit assumption about the respondent's beliefs' right there.
It contains no assumptions, therefore it's not a loaded question.
Oh come on. The phrasing makes appear as though the latter is necessary to achieve the former.
Blimey, His Majesty doesn't look a well man !
And why is he wearing badly applied lipstick, was he angry when he put it on? It makes him look like the Joker.
I hope he looks more presentable for Donald Trump's state visit
It contains no assumptions, therefore it's not a loaded question.
Oh come on. The phrasing makes appear as though the latter is necessary to achieve the former.
Not for me.
A loaded question which implies the latter is necessary to achieve the former would be something like, "do you support the government's responsible approach to ensuring national security by reallocating the necessary funds from less critical overseas aid programmes".
But as it stands they're simply asking if people support or oppose the approach. I don't know how you would make that question any less loaded tbh.
Not for me
It is for me, and for at least one other on this thread. If that's how it comes across to a reasonable percentage of those asked, it skews the result.
But as it stands they're simply asking if people support or oppose the approach. I don't know how you would make that question any less loaded tbh.
There is an agree/disagree acquiescence bias towards agree, especially with little information available on the subject polled.
Substituting agree/disagree you get, "Do you agree or disagree with the Government increasing defence spending by reducing spending on overseas aid?"
YouGov is an international business and they'll want to provide the most accurate poll results possible if they want to make money. I'd guess that their own survey experiments show that "support/oppose" is more accurate than "agree/disagree", which is more accurate than a loaded question.
Blimey, His Majesty doesn't look a well man !
Yes I fear we will have to tolerate more pomp and ceremony before too long. Considering how much the death of the Queen cost the country Rachel Reeves will be hoping he hangs on for a few more years yet.
The guy's 76 and up until recently, maybe still, was having regular (weekly?) radiotherapy.
Not a Royalist by any stretch but some of the above is rather distasteful, IMO.
The guy's 76 and up until recently, maybe still, was having regular (weekly?) radiotherapy.
Very similar to my FiL, who was dead a few year later. Can a Rachel Reeves managed economy afford the death of two monarchs in one or two terms? Probably not, but then she'll probably pay for it by withdrawing school dinners or something.
Not a Royalist by any stretch but some of the above is rather distasteful, IMO.
I think it's called black humour and/or satire, you should try it sometime.
The guy's 76 and up until recently, maybe still, was having regular (weekly?) radiotherapy
He's also standing next to a guy widely regarded as a hottie (by politics standards, anyway).
The guy's 76 and up until recently, maybe still, was having regular (weekly?) radiotherapy.
What on earth has that to do with him looking like the Joker? A very close friend of mine was diagnosed with cancer several years ago, she has had radiotherapy and regularly has chemo, the next lot is in a couple of weeks as it happens. Her makeup, including her lipstick when she uses it, is absolutely fine.
He's also standing next to a guy widely regarded as a hottie (by politics standards, anyway).
Tbh that is a fair comment. After the original shock of seeing how unwell His Majesty appeared my next thought was that the fact he was standing next to a tall handsome ****er with French genes wasn't helping.
Good for your friend. Not all people suffer the same side effects but red mouth and mucous membranes along with skin pallour can be side effects.
OK black humour, I just found it rather distasteful -> IMHO <-
The doubling down responses are IMHO more distasteful, FWIW.
but red mouth and mucous membranes along with skin pallour can be side effects.
So this isn't a sign that the King is particularly ill then, just a normal reaction to the treatment he is recieving?
If that is the case you would think that they would organise a bit of makeup for a photoshoot for the global media. And if it is something to worry about and it is a sign that he is very ill I don't understand the necessity of him having a photoshoot with Trudeau.
Whatever the explanation the King posing for photographs looking like death warmed up isn't particularly reassuring imo.
Here's the distasteful part of politics.
The Treasury has earmarked several billion pounds in draft spending cuts to welfare and other government departments amid expectations the chancellor's room for manoeuvre has all but been wiped out.
The department will put the proposed cuts to the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR), the official forecaster, on Wednesday ahead of the Spring Statement later this month.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1lpjqg2mp5o
Bean-counter general is gearing up again with her spreadsheet and insistence in using made-up fiscal rules derived from a made-up institution created by George Osborne to again slaughter the economy and people's lives. (do Labour have any nonsense institutions of their own or are they all Tory cast-offs?)
We are going through the cringe-worthy motions as the right-wingers pretend there's a limited stock of money that comes from the BoE. (Funny that; BoE and its agents paying interest income is an approved part of government spending that is not controlled by fiscal rules - wealth to the wealthy) so something has to be cut.
(On the other side of the pond the daft musk mob wants to remove government spending from GDP - government spending in the USA makes up 22% of GDP plus multiplier effect. What do you think will happen to the GDP now in the USA? All that growth they have is going to be hammered by an idiot that doesn't understand one drop of government finances. And worse services too. The National Parks are already falling apart in no time with staff cuts.)
The monetarists' belief that money comes from the private sector is an insane and ruthless disease that ideologically destroys everything around us that makes society what it is.
Labour are part of the same game.
(Let's not worry though as McSweeny's gameplan in a last ditch attempt to save Starmer's polling is to give him war-footing for popularity. Every sucker will buy into it including Paul Mason whose transformation is complete into fully fledged Twitter general along with Dunt, O'Brien and the rest of LBC.)
Here's the distasteful part of politics.
The Treasury has earmarked several billion pounds in draft spending cuts to welfare and other government departments amid expectations the chancellor's room for manoeuvre has all but been wiped out.
The department will put the proposed cuts to the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR), the official forecaster, on Wednesday ahead of the Spring Statement later this month.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1lpjqg2mp5o
Bean-counter general is gearing up again with her spreadsheet and insistence in using made-up fiscal rules derived from a made-up institution created by George Osborne to again slaughter the economy and people's lives. (do Labour have any nonsense institutions of their own or are they all Tory cast-offs?)
We are going through the cringe-worthy motions as the right-wingers pretend there's a limited stock of money that comes from the BoE. (Funny that; BoE and its agents paying interest income is an approved part of government spending that is not controlled by fiscal rules - wealth to the wealthy) so something has to be cut.
(On the other side of the pond the daft musk mob wants to remove government spending from GDP - government spending in the USA makes up 22% of GDP plus multiplier effect. What do you think will happen to the GDP now in the USA? All that growth they have is going to be hammered by an idiot that doesn't understand one drop of government finances. And worse services too. The National Parks are already falling apart in no time with staff cuts.)
The monetarists' belief that money comes from the private sector is an insane and ruthless disease that ideologically destroys every around us that makes society what it is.
Labour are part of the same game.
(Let's not worry though as McSweeny's gameplan in a last ditch attempt to save Starmer's polling is to give him war-footing for popularity. Every sucker will buy into it including Paul Mason whose transformation is complete into fully fledged Twitter Army General along with Dunt, O'Brien and the rest of LBC.)
Duplicate for some reason. Apologies.
YouGov is an international business and they'll want to provide the most accurate poll results possible if they want to make money
Just a reminder that yougov was formed by Nadhim Zahawi... Not a man of great morals. Yougov is perfectly able to make money whilst directing questions to get the answers they want (if anything, more so). I think it's naïve to say otherwise.
a made-up institution created by George Osborne to again slaughter the economy and people's lives. (do Labour have any nonsense institutions of their own or are they all Tory cast-offs?)
Their slavish commitment to Tory strategies is quite remarkable, they really can't claim to be a 'Labour' government in any real sense of the word, they are Tory in everything but name.
The ridiculously named "Office of Budget Responsibility" was a gimmick created by the Tories to firstly drive home the myth that the last Labour government had been "irresponsible" in their handling of the global credit crisis.
And secondly to help the Tories make the case for austerity by portraying it as the "responsible" thing to do...... the "independent" OBR whose members are handpicked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would prove that.
Now 15 years later New Labour on steroids, as Starmer likes to see it, are enthusiastically embracing the Office of Budget Responsibility to help them make the case for their own austerity programme and to also pretend that it has the backing of a so-called independent organisation which was specifically created by the Tories to be an anti-Labour tool.
Never was the term "two cheeks of the same arse" more appropriate.
Labour are going to ban criminals from going to pubs and other 'social' events. I'll be interested to see how they're going to enforce that one considering they don't have enough police to prevent shoplifting, burglaries and muggings. Or are they going to expect landlords to do the job?
The radio silence is deafening.
Christ I posted that last comment nearly 12 hours ago and it’s only just appeared. No wonder there’s radio silence. Good way to kill a forum though if that’s what the plan is. 🙄
Well, given that the kind of 'social event' that crims are normally drawn to often has a police presence, it might not be as difficult as first thought.
As for the pubs, again - the ones that crims usually frequent will be well known to the police. We're hardly talking about a quaint country pub with flowerbeds in the beer garden in most cases. Plus the quaint country pub is usually on high alert for anyone a bit shifty and will be on the phone to the Dibble the second anything looks like kicking off.
We use prison too much. Looking at improving the alternatives seems essential to me.
Wide support for cutting international aid to fund increased defence spending according to yougov, including among Labour voters.
It seems that most people understand that being forced to change your plans by the occurrence of unforeseen events doesn't mean you are displaying "hypocrisy". Phew!
It'll be interesting to see how much of a boost Starmer gets in approval ratings and election polling after displaying such impressive global leadership this weekend.
Well it seems to have worked, slashing the international aid budget to boost defence spending (it will probably all be spent thousands of miles away in the Chaos Islands to keep Donald Trump sweet and nothing to do with defending the UK) as championed by Nigel Farage, Labour are now 1% in front of Reform UK :
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/51714-voting-intention-lab-26-ref-25-con-21-02-03-mar-2025
Obviously on only 26% Labour need to do considerably better than that if they stand any chance of winning the next general election. So perhaps they need to see what other ideas they can pinch from the Reform UK's election manifesto and Nigel Farage?
Btw I can't quite believe that Labour being on only 26% doesn't appear to be causing Keir Starmer's leadership any problems. Imagine the outrage it would have caused the previous Labour leader. Starmer/McSweeney really have the Labour Party in their pockets.
Obviously on only 26% Labour need to do considerably better than that if they stand any chance of winning the next general election
Not really. With the Tory/Reform vote split as it is, it’s likely it could deliver a result not too different from the recent landslide.
You know there’s not an election for another 4 years, right?
Looking at improving the alternatives seems essential to me.
Completely agree, but the alternatives have to be both enforcable and effective. How are they going to enforce banning people from pubs? My local has trouble keeping out the people who have been barred or are on pub watch without having to worry about a whole load of other people serving community orders.
Not really. With the Tory/Reform vote split as it is
Two problems with that. Firstly reform is also splitting the labour vote. Secondly any govt needs a clear mandate to do anything, and 26% is a long way from that.
You know there’s not an election for another 4 years, right?
Yep, I see what you mean - another 4 years and there will be no difference between Reform and Labour the way Labour are going.
Still thinking about actually going through with the £30 bet you offered on Labour not losing the election in 4 years time?
Looking at improving the alternatives seems essential to me.
Completely agree, but the alternatives have to be both enforcable and effective. How are they going to enforce banning people from pubs? My local has trouble keeping out the people who have been barred or are on pub watch without having to worry about a whole load of other people serving community orders.
You may be misunderstanding what is being proposed (and tbf the report hasn't been written yet!).
Bail conditions are imposed on people charged with crimes pending trial so they don't have to be kept on remand. Common examples are no drinking, no going back to scene of alleged crime, curfew etc.
What this is about is giving judges more latitude to order similar MEASURES AFTER conviction to keep offenders out of trouble without imprisoning them (which is expensive and often counterproductive).
No-one is suggesting that pubs should be response for barring convicts from going there.
Still thinking about actually going through with the £30 bet you offered on Labour not losing the election in 4 years time?
Well seeing as it was me who offered the bet in the first place… yes. But the bet wasn’t Labour not losing. I wasn’t the one who made the confident assertion that the next government will be a Tory or Reform one or a Tory/Reform coalition. That’s the bet. I think it will be none of those things and am prepared to risk a lot of steak bakes on it
Not really. With the Tory/Reform vote split as it is
Two problems with that. Firstly reform is also splitting the labour vote. Secondly any govt needs a clear mandate to do anything, and 26% is a long way from that.
Just 6% of last years labour voters would vote reform now according to the yougov poll, compared to 22% of Tory voters who would vote reform.
I don't know what the threshold is for "splitting the vote" but I don't think 6% does it for me. The Lib Dems at 9% and Greens are 5% are also "splitting the labour vote" if that's how you define it. Yet it's fair to say we can expect some of those to back Labour again if the realistic alternative if tories or farage.
With the Tory/Reform vote split as it is, it’s likely it could deliver a result not too different from the recent landslide.
With the current figures as they are it would deliver a result totally different to the recent landslide. Not only would there be no landslide victory for Labour but there wouldn't even be a Labour majority.
In fact it's likely that the Tories and Reform could form a coalition government with a working majority.
The most recent seat prediction from an MRP.poll a week ago puts the Tories the largest party but 148 seats short of a majority. However it gives Reform UK 175 seats so the Tories could go into coalition with them and they would have a comfortable majority.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/blogs/ec_vipoll_20250207.html
Polling 4 years out from a GE is fairly meaningless
Locals will give a slightly better indication and I expect Lab to get a thumping there, but with Farage looking weaker atm on Ukraine/Trump, it will be interesting to see what gains Refuk might make, theyd be a good bet to take a lot of Con & Lab seats and a lot of opinions & colum inches will be spun off that. While Starmers & Labs approval has ticked up lately, mostly off his handling of Ukraine/ Trump
https://bsky.app/profile/electionmaps.uk/post/3ljnaatbsqc2e
but if you check out the data tables, 53% say they Dont Know, as i said this far out polls are poor indicators
Ultimately the thing that determines the next GE will be the same thing that determined the last one, whether people feel better off, how quickly they can see a GP, A&E, whether their kids can get on the housing ladder, whether they feel secure in their jobs etc, a Trumpcession & trade war could well see things looking grimmer (and see labour punished come the locals in May too if its kicking off and prices are rising)
The Con/Reform rivalry is still undecided, I wouldnt even like to guess who will be leader of either party come the next GE