He might gain some votes back from racist labour defectors in the electorate who voted reform in the recent locals
Unlikely since Reform have also adopted various traditionally left wing policies. So if someone wants a racist left wing party reform will happily pretend to be so (the left wing bit that is).
Oddly Starmer hasnt copied Reforms use of those policies since thats a step too far for him.
Any more thoughts on what “an island of strangers” means? I can’t get past the idea it’s just about everyone looking, sounding and thinking the same. The alternative cannot be about us all “knowing” each other… it must be about us thinking that we are all similar. Count me out.
island of strangers reeks of a Mosley/Powell speech, starmer deserves a slap for such crap
I think this also fits with the cutting back benefits rhetoric. There will be plenty of (minimum wage unpleasent) jobs available giving them an excuse to reduce working age benefits, will it work, probably not but it will play well with traditional Labour supporters who have gone to Reform who think anyone in receipt of working age benefits is a lazy scrounger whilst conviently forgetting they are also net beneficiaries from the state.
traditional Labour supporters who have gone to Reform
This is all Starmer and McSweeney, no excuses, this blaming everyone else for their bigotry has to stop, they are now driving the racist narrative not responding to it.
island of strangers reeks of a Mosley/Powell speech, starmer deserves a slap for such crap
That was my first thought. Trying to outflank Reform on the right is an electoral dead end, it's a battle they can't win.
traditional Labour supporters who have gone to Reform
Why this apparent belief that the typical Reform voter is a former Labour voter? A far more typical Reform voter is a former Tory voter.
This YouGov poll is admittedly about three months old but I very much doubt that the Reform voter demographics has changed substantially since then, although admittedly there are probably even more pissed off Labour voters :
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/51474-what-is-attracting-24-of-britons-to-reform-uk
You will note the following :
By party voted for in 2024
Reform UK 90
Conservative 33
Labour 9
Lib Dem 8
So three months ago 91% of Labour 2024 voters were not claiming to be Reform supporters, which is almost identical to the 92% of LibDem 2024 voters who were also not claiming to be Reform supporters.
In contrast a third of Tory 2024 voters were claiming to have switched to Reform.
The sort of person who is now being attracted to Reform is typically a Tory voter.
Starmer has his work cut out trying to attract former Tory voters who have now defected to Reform. I rate his chances of success as very low.
Any more thoughts on what “an island of strangers” means? I can’t get past the idea it’s just about everyone looking, sounding and thinking the same. The alternative cannot be about us all “knowing” each other… it must be about us thinking that we are all similar. Count me out.
island of strangers reeks of a Mosley/Powell speech, starmer deserves a slap for such crap
Yeah Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood speech. Here's a passage from that speech.
"they found themselves made strangers in their own country. They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places"
I remember Blair's government getting battered with negative headlines about immigration and asylum seekers, and Brown's infamous "bigoted woman" comment might have been triggered by said woman's comment about eastern european immigrants.
It may not be what any of us here want from them but I suspect the Labour leadership by now has a very deeply embedded fear of being hammered in the press and in public opinion about seeming soft on immigration. I think that at least initially Blair was very positive about the benefits of free movement within Europe and hence immigration but it didn't seem to work very well back then, so memories of that might be why they're reluctant to really push back on the right's immigration narrative now.
Still, the above is all just the speculation about why Starmer/Labour are behaving like this, not agreement that their approach is a good one.
There's a lot of things I didn't like about Gordon Brown... But calling a bigot, a bigot, isn't one of them!
I suspect the Labour leadership by now has a very deeply embedded fear of being hammered in the press and in public opinion
Being tough on immigration does not require the use of dangerous language which will indisputably fan the flames of fear and hatred. Fear and hatred which is presenting itself as a growing crisis not only in the UK but across much of Europe and the United States.
Starmer could easily have avoided the "island of strangers" hyperbole but, like Enoch Powell before him, he obviously wants to exploit the fears and prejudices that some voters have.
As he desperately tries to shore up his failing political career..... just like Enoch Powell.
'Island of strangers' is designed to frighten people it is not designed to sound comforting and reassuring. And as a barrister Keir Starmer fully understands the power of words when presenting a case.
Indeed, I expect more from someone of his intelligence, and as former "Head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)"
Seems domestically he just wants to roll around in the gutter with trump, farrage and 'bad-Enoch' with the recent language
Yeah Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood speech. Here's a passage from that speech.
"they found themselves made strangers in their own country. They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places"
christ…that could just as easily been spoken by starmer earlier
“Do we have any foreigners in the audience tonight?” “If so, please put up your hands. So where are you? Well, wherever you are, I think you should all just leave. Not just leave the hall, leave our country. I don’t want you here, in the room or in my country.” “Listen to me, man! I think we should send them all back.” “Stop Britain from becoming a black colony. Get the foreigners out,” “Get the w*gs out. Get the c**ns out. Keep Britain white,”
The backlash to the above was Rock Against Racism.
Even if half the population is racist (polls on racist statements suggest in the range 20-40%) Starmer is going to piss off the other half. That other half is important to him, the hard-line racists will vote Farage whatever, Labopur has nothing to gain from this shit, and there will be a backlash.
But a pro Europe pro immigration party has been in government in Scotland for 15 years and now looks nailed on to continue
Yet Scotland has one of the lowest levels of immigration. The only part of England that has less is the North East
Something doesn't add up
Quite.
What's the ****ing point?
Even if you think Labour aren't doing what you want, any vote for any other party or a no-vote is a vote for Reform.
Even if you think Labour aren't doing what you want, any vote for any other party or a no-vote is a vote for Reform.
And if Labour just become Reform step by step?
FWIW, Ben Jennings's cartoon in today's Graun is spot on. Obvs I can post the image, but look for yourself.
That's what people said when I voted for Macron first time around. No party that's only existed for a year can win they said.
'Island of strangers' is designed to frighten people it is not designed to sound comforting and reassuring. And as a barrister Keir Starmer fully understands the power of words when presenting a case.
Absolutely awful use of language, and the fact that it was used by a Labour PM is disgusting. It just has so many echoes of "rivers of blood".
And completely wrong, based on my experience of working in a very diverse team of first and second generation immigrants.
It truly has become a wrestling match in the gutter as someone brilliantly described it further up
And if Labour just become Reform step by step?
Do you think Reform actually know the first thing about running a country? It'll be like Liz Truss for 4 years.
For those who see a similarity between Starmer's rhetoric on immigration yesterday and Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood speech it is worth remembering that despite much higher levels of tolerance of racism 60 years ago when Enoch Powell made his speech, a Labour government had only made racial discrimination illegal 3 years earlier, the Tory leader to his credit did not hesitate to immediately sack Enoch Powell from the Shadow Cabinet the next day.
Who is going to sack the Labour leader?
Personally I reckon that Starmer and McSweeney are undoubtly relishing the backlash that the inflammatory rhetoric has caused. It is precisely that sort of reaction which Starmer's biggest current political rival Nigel Farage thrives on, and it makes Starmer look tough and uncompromising.
It'll be like Liz Truss for 4 years.
Starmer got there first, idiotic failed domestic policy, photoshoot opportunity politics on the international stage. Hopefully he won't last 4 years, but he has hollowed out the heart from the labour party so I am worried about the direction it takes even after he is given the boot.
I first posted this article by David Renton over 5 years ago when Starmer first became Labour leader, it predicts his behaviour with surprising accuracy.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/16/keir-starmer-past-scrutiny
The last paragraph sums it up :
Starmer’s enthusiasm while DPP for using mundane news events to feed the press with rightwing talking points is a possible concern for Labour members. If such a leader was faced with news of an injustice in the future – the consequence of a change to immigration rules, say, or of a strike in public services – Starmer’s approach to the press as DPP might raise worries that he would not give a principled defence of the victims but would tell the press whatever it wanted to hear.
When push comes to shove Starmer has always failed the test.
Who is going to sack the Labour leader?
Personally I reckon that Starmer and McSweeney are undoubtly relishing the backlash that the inflammatory rhetoric has caused. It is precisely that sort of reaction which Starmer's biggest current political rival Nigel Farage thrives on, and it makes Starmer look tough and uncompromising.
The voters.
Voters like me who see him as racist, divisive, white supremacist, stigmatising immigrants and their descendants, modern slavery advocate (because that's what the visas for carers tied to employment contracts amounts to).
Those wishing to vote for a party that represents right and good will look elsewhere, and to hell with tactical voting.
His 10 pledges are in tatters(economic conditions have changed was his excuse - bollocks), his 5+1 pledges are in stagnation with one exception, the +1. You can't win an election on one pledge your opposition does better.
Even if you think Labour aren't doing what you want, any vote for any other party or a no-vote is a vote for Reform.
It's increasingly difficult to tell the difference.
Even if you think Labour aren't doing what you want, any vote for any other party or a no-vote is a vote for Reform.
Quite the opposite, a vote for labour has now proven to be a vote for reform and their policies. This is evidenced by a, labours lurch to reform policies, b, labours policy failures massively increasing reforms voter share, and c, labours purge of the labour party for ideological purity silencing progressive voices within the party and pushing the party into competing on the populist bandwagon.
It is a centrist fear mongering that not voting centrist is the path to a right wing take over, "centrist" governments in the UK, USA, Germany and France have lead to either a wannabe fascist dictator in the US, and a massive upsurge of support for right wing populists in the other countries, 4 of the biggest economies in the world.
So look at the evidence instead of stating centrist propoganda that is demonstratable a false narrative.
If Reform-Tory win the next general election the responsibility for that will rest squarely with Sir Keir Starmer.
No Prime Minister who has won a landslide has ever handed victory to the opposition at the subsequent general election.
Starmer has been given a fairly unique opportunity and he is squandering it for a variety of reasons including his ineptitude and lack of political convictions.
Quite the opposite, a vote for labour has now proven to be a vote for reform and their policies
I think Reform would be way worse.
It is a centrist fear mongering that not voting centrist is the path to a right wing take over
No, it's the frustrating reality of FPTP. You can't vote how you want, you have to vote tactically. This ****s everything up, but it's the system we have.
No, it's the frustrating reality of FPTP. You can't vote how you want, you have to vote tactically. This ****s everything up, but it's the system we have.
And yet countries in Europe with other voting systems are having the same problems. The core problem isn't the voting system, it is the political environment failing to address societies problem, always travelling ever rightward, framing right wing politics as "centrist" and then coming out with the bullshit that "we are your only choice so suck it up and bend over". You might have bought that lie, but it is not supported by the evidence.
Oh, and taking the oligarchy money out of politics and lobying would have a far far more transformative impact on voting than changing the system. Even though I support a more representative voting system, changing political funding is the biggest hit, PR would be the icing on the cake.
And that is something that any leader that believes in democracy could do, Starmer could have a huge impact on the future of the nation, if he did that one thing, despite all his other failures, if he stopped the oligarchs from controlling politics for their own benefit against the general population it would create a real platform for change.
But he won't even see the issue, never mind look at solutions, he will instead go ahead with the HOL reforms, which is so minor and inconsequential will have **** all impact on the lives, health and wealth of 99% of the nation.
And completely wrong, based on my experience of working in a very diverse team of first and second generation immigrants.
Your "diverse team" is what the UK has become. But the mainstream politicians seem intent on dividing it. It's no longer a question of parties representing socio-economic groups, the main parties seem intent on alienating whole sections of the population. It's becoming very American (I tried to insert a US census link but it bust the forum) where the correlation between the biggest ethnic groups and voting habits is striking. In California the biggest ethinic group is latinos and they vote democrate, and Trumps hates the place. Redneck land is Republican.
In the UK Labour tends to do well in areas with high levels of first and second generation immigration, perhaps not such a good correlation as the US but it's there. So if Starmer had any sense he'd have inclusive rather than divisive policies and play to that diverse team. But, no he wants to be on the racist bandwagon, he's worried that Labour has lost votes in the redneck red wall. But he won't get them back. What he should be worried about is biting the hands that feed him and a lot of those are first and second generation immigrants, and people like those on this thread who don't want to see a Britain divided politically, socially and geographically on ethnic lines.
Starmer is pandering to the redneck white trash, they won't vote for him.
In the UK Labour tends to do well in areas with high levels of first and second generation immigration, perhaps not such a good correlation as the US but it's there.
Very true. Some of this is down to the age of people in those areas as well. But demographic spread means that Labour can’t win with the cities alone. Weighing up votes in the cities while marginally losing loads of town and county seats means opposition. Not that this means stirring up “fear of strangers” is an election winning strategy in my mind, but simply working out where and why people have voted Labour in the biggest numbers isn’t such a strategy either.
Starmer is pandering to the redneck white trash, they won't vote for him.
I don't think it's just redneck white trash any more. Apart from the fact that's an incredibly snobbish and loaded term, I think anti-immigration sentiment in the UK (and the whole of western Europe and the US) is much more widespread. Whether we like it or not immigration is now seen as one of the primary problems by the electorate at large. The problem for Starmer (and whoever succeeds him) is that rolling back the policy of importing cheap labour to do the millions of jobs UK citizens don't want to do is going to cost an enormous amount of money and take a very long time. Those are two things he doesn't have. I'd almost feel sorry for him but this is a result of politicians like him failing to grasp the nettle of failed neo-liberal economics.
PS I note the Starmer fanclub on here has gone very quiet. Must be disappointing to see their grownup, pragmatic and sensible torchbearer jump on the white supremacy bandwagon.
Apart from the fact that's an incredibly snobbish and loaded term
That was the intention. I'm just sad that you missed out "intellectually" before snobbish. 😉
Whatever you want to call them I think Starmer pandering to them is counter productive when most people are woke:
Whatever you want to call them I think Starmer pandering to them is counter productive when most people are woke:
It's much more complicated than that. Here in working class West Yorkshire I know people who could be classed as being both woke (another stupid loaded term) and worried about immigration. It's the classic everyone who is concerned about immigration is a racist trope, and I can 100% tell you this isn't true. But carry on though with the blinkers on, it'll only result in one thing, which is a Farage govt.
I spent 15 years working in Social Care, most of that as a senior manager trying to resolve some of the serious issues around staffing and affordability of service delivery. The UK Gov decision to throttle the inflow of foreign workforce in this sector is absolutely bat shit crazy. Its akin to Trump putting a tariff on plastic toys from China and thinking that US will ramp up plastic toy production.
The only way this will work is if they pump loads of money into Social Care to allow providers to pay £3-5 per hour more. So long as it is low wage job, UK national workers will chose retail / hospitality or anything other social care. And, it is not a low skill job, that language is insulting.
This is a serious miscalculation by the government which will, very quickly, result in increased bed blocking and readmissions to hospitals (when care packages fail).
The only way this will work is if they pump loads of money into Social Care to allow providers to pay £3-5 per hour more. So long as it is low wage job, UK national workers will chose retail / hospitality or anything other social care. And, it is not a low skill job, that language is insulting.
Totally agree with this. Supply and demand should increase wages here for very good reason. Labour would at least have a line of logic here. Public sector pay increases feeds growth.
(It's the whole 'why don't we look after our own' dog-whistle but when we could do that we don't do that either.)
Boxed in for simple knee-jerk Reform baiting reasons rather than good economic sense.
Public sector pay increases feeds growth.
I reckon public sector jobs need something like a 30-40% pay increase across the board to make them attractive again. I could list a whole load of mates who spent years training and getting into debt at uni only to be paid not much more than 30k a year. That's less than we pay new engineering graduates and about 20k less than someone at my place with a few years of experience under their belts. If the jobs don't pay, people don't want to do them, it's as simple as that.
Having had close contact with carers in both my own family and those of friends recently it strikes me that the money is there to pay good wages but the company directors are lining their pockets . One friend is paying £4000 a week or about £24/hour but the carers are on the minimum wage so costing their employers about £15/hour. That's a pretty good margin. Anyone want to start a business called STW readers' care services?
As for the carers themselves: caring, competant and mainly African. On a sample size of six, one UK born.
One friend is paying £4000 a week or about £24/hour but the carers are on the minimum wage so costing their employers about £15/hour. That's a pretty good margin. Anyone want to start a business called STW readers' care services?
What about the cost of the care home itself, utilities, insurance equipment etc etc?
Whilst the only care home owner I know isn't surviving on bread and water, she isn't a multi millionaire either. Like any private business it's there to make a profit, it's not a charity
We see property prices damaging the general population with unaffordable homes, but it is also affecting businesses. How can anyone set up a "care home" in the uk without already starting with a big pile of money. Property prices are a big barrier for small start ups.
It's another damage caused by an asset first economy that only benefits the already wealthy.
That care is increasingly needed with an ageing population, and it is another thing that can only really be tackled with government provision of care, leaving it to the market will make most of us suffer sooner or later.
It's the classic everyone who is concerned about immigration is a racist trope
Why are they concerned? We're the sixth biggest economy in the world and can afford whatever we choose. (The choice currently is to line a few people's pockets, not ensure everyone gets a fair crack of the whip). Address that and the concern disappears, unless they are actually racist.
EDI Migration Observatory suggests that the majority population of West Yorkshire is white at a smidge under 77% and 11% of the population was born outside of UK. (changed for 2021 external births)
..... the money is there to pay good wages but the company directors are lining their pockets.....
And that therein lies the root cause of most of the country's problems, lets throw in a bit of tax avoidance and that probably covers it all.
Why are they concerned?
decades of being told they should be concerned combined with a bit of racism that exists in most people.
Why are they concerned?
The usual stuff. People's daily experience is one of never ending decline. Lack of decent or affordable housing, not being able to get a GP appt, inability to get their kids into their chosen school, huge waits in A&E and for hospital treatment etc. Then they see the news and charts showing 600k per year of net migration in the last few years and they put two and two together, and then have that reinforced by politicians of all colours telling them their suspicions are true.
It doesn't really matter if the cause of all these things is immigration or 'too many people', all that matters is that they believe it. Personally I would attribute all of the above to chronic lack of investment in public services caused by austerity-driven economics but try making that argument when all they hear from politicians and journalists is that the country is nearly bankrupt and doesn't have any money.
decades of being told they should be concerned combined with a bit of racism
I wouldn't necessarily call it racism, more fear/dislike of outsiders. Here in Calderdale people are very animated about gentrification and rich southerners (and people from Manchester like me) moving here and forcing up all the property and rent prices. Most of these people are white and middle class.
moving here and forcing up all the property and rent prices
Which is again an affordability issue, deal with the unaffordable property prices (which is effecting a whole chunk of western economies) or be directed to focus the anger on anyone seen as an outsider.
Type "property unaffordability crisis" prefixed with France, UK, USA, Germany, Canada etc etc and you will find similar problem everywhere. This is a problem created by policies encouraging asset growth and suppressing wage growth, migration is the distraction not the major cause, and racism is being encouraged by our leaders to cover up their failures.
What about the cost of the care home itself, utilities, insurance equipment etc etc?
This isn't in a care home, it's care in the guy's own home. £4000 a week.
I wouldn't necessarily call it racism, more fear/dislike of outsiders.
The word you're looking for is xenophobia. But when xenophobia concerns people that belong to groups that are not the same ethnic group as yourself it's racism.
From Labour Brexit apologists to Labour racism apologists. Anyhow Starmer:
"take back control of our borders"
"close the book on a squalid chapter"
"everybody knows what that means on immigration"
"that's chaos"
And so it goes on. Not a mention of what all those hard working immigrants have done for Britian and its population. No mention of what the country would be without them. Stigamatising those who have been a part of it with "squalid chapter" and "that's chaos" when they are are good people who've prevented chaos. If they were needed it was because of that other act of xenophobic self harm - Brexit which meant Europeans went home rather than be spat on.
Just listen to the man, he's odious. The tone of voice full of contempt, the body language. I didn't watch it in full I turned the nasty man off. Fueling hate, dividing society.
Just listen to the man, he's odious.
I'm not defending him. I think his latest comments on immigration are an outrageous abdication of his duty as the resident PM to be honest with the people he governs. Everything he says on this issue is an outright lie, but he's calculated that it's what people want to hear. He's also not being honest about the amount of money and time that will be required to reduce immigration if public services are not to be damaged.
If I were him I would have explained rationally that immigration has increased as a result of successive government's policies of propping up public services with immigrant labour rather than paying for training and higher salaries to get native workers to do those jobs. Then I would have explained that we can't have it both ways, we can't have low immigration and decent public services if we're not prepared to pay for it. And the way to pay for it is to ultimately tax the well off more and use the proceeds to pay for improved salaries and training. That's the sort of honest and 'grownup' style of government we were promised when he became PM, and he's gone back on it at the first opportunity.
Type "property unaffordability crisis" prefixed with France, UK, USA, Germany, Canada etc etc and you will find similar problem everywhere. This is a problem created by policies encouraging asset growth and suppressing wage growth, migration is the distraction not the major cause, and racism is being encouraged by our leaders to cover up their failures.
"We" desperately need a politician to start making this point. Loudly, coherently, clearly. Not even sure they need to claim to have a solution(s) but just need to start to adjust thinking and mindset.
I like your latest post, Dazh. It makes your personal position clearer and I agree.
One friend is paying £4000 a week or about £24/hour but the carers are on the minimum wage so costing their employers about £15/hour. That's a pretty good margin. Anyone want to start a business called STW readers' care services?
Honestly, there are not many rich owners of care companies.
The carer is probably on Living Wage, not minimum wage. On costs are usually around 30%. You then need to factor in training, registration, travel time and expense, uniform, PPE, recruitment / turnover, management costs, mobile phone, scheduling staff and systems, overtime rate for covering absences ....... You get the idea. You statement is just too simplistic, they are not making £9 per hour profit.
One friend is paying £4000 a week or about £24/hour but the carers are on the minimum wage so costing their employers about £15/hour. That's a pretty good margin.
Honestly, there are not many rich owners of care companies.
In your scenario it looks like your friend requires 24hr care, so that is a massive requirement for someone who sounds like they have very complex care needs. This is specialist stuff, I suspect they need 'double ups' at various points in the day for lifting etc.
The carer is probably on Living Wage, not minimum wage. On costs are usually around 30%. You then need to factor in training, registration, travel time and expense, uniform, PPE, recruitment / turnover, management costs, mobile phone, scheduling staff and systems, overtime rate for covering absences ....... You get the idea. You statement is just too simplistic, they are not making £9 per hour profit.
Anyone want to start a business called STW readers' care services?
Absolutely, 100% not. It is a brutally tough industry which successive Government's, and society, have totally undervalued and is now being made even harder by dog whistle politics.
Why are they concerned?
Yesterday the supposedly Labour prime minister told voters that the damage done by immigration was "incalculable" and that he would “close the book on a squalid chapter for our politics, our economy, and our country”.
They have every reason to be concerned, shirley.
It certainly sounds very serious to me.
Yesterday the supposedly Labour prime minister told voters that the damage done by immigration was "incalculable"
Think what he meant was the damage done to his chances of re-election. 😀
PS I note the Starmer fanclub on here has gone very quiet. Must be disappointing to see their grownup, pragmatic and sensible torchbearer jump on the white supremacy bandwagon.
Guessing they are just in a constant state of shock of how bad Starmer is but yet continually manages to get worse by the week.
I will admit this Labour government has shocked me and I would vote Labour as a sensible choice given the options and chances but that is well and clearly over now.
Even if you think Labour aren't doing what you want, any vote for any other party or a no-vote is a vote for Reform.
But if Labour keep legitimising and copying Reform's play book there'll be no difference anyway by GE 2029 time.
Prioritising the votes of bigots and disenfranchising moderate folk. Awesome.
But if Labour keep legitimising and copying Reform's play book there'll be no difference anyway by GE 2029 time.
A political party brings TWO things - one is political alignment, the other is competence. Even if Labour and Reform end up with the same alignment, there's no way Reform would be up to the even slightly competent standards of current Labour. They are bickering and infighting constantly, they've got bugger all political experience, they've only got Farage as a populist mouthpiece and as soon as he goes they're going in the dustbin. Labour have a slim chance of improving the economy, Reform have zero. They will not get anything done at all except attempt a few popular policies and **** them up. The NHS is properly doomed. They will slash and burn everything Trump style.
If you think Labour are bad you haven't seen anything yet. I'm pretty sure investors and businesses will think the same as me which is pretty crucial for the economy as well.
Even if Labour and Reform end up with the same alignment, there's no way Reform would be up to the even slightly competent standards of current Labour.
Blimey, under Starmer Labour were touted as a more competent version of conservatism....
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-stamer-conservative-new-labour-b2337901.html
Now they are being sold as a more competent version of Reform UK!
Personally I would much prefer the less competent version.
PS I note the Starmer fanclub on here has gone very quiet. Must be disappointing to see their grownup, pragmatic and sensible torchbearer jump on the white supremacy bandwagon.
Given their reaction to unsubstantiated claims of antisemitism against the last labour leader, and using that to hound him out of the labour party, they must be planning nuclear warfare against Starmer with this much evidence of racism, they must be right? I mean otherwise that would make them complete ****ing hypocrites.
I don't really see this incarnation of Labour as competent.
They've made several really poor key economic decisions and don't have a clue where to get 'money' or growth from.
They've also wasted a huge majority and turned it into dire polling. (Not to mention the early shoddy freebie debacle. It would have been pretty easy to stay clean of those too.)
Also the disastrously late budget which they had time to plan and deliver for. (Let's not even get into the seriously stupid growth plan that didn't exist in that package.)
The home goals of not dealing with 2CBC and the WFA in a progressive way - all totally unnecessary and silly choices to be at the helm of.
That's not to say Reform won't be a whole barrel of incompetence.
Incalculable. That was the damage immigrants had caused. And Keir should know. Because he had spent days – make that weeks – trying to calculate it. And he had had to give up, because the foreigners had made it far too difficult for him to reach a figure. That’s the thing with foreigners. Always trying to shift the goalposts. But if Starmer knew one thing, it was that this country was going to the dogs. And he knew precisely who was to blame.
A political party brings TWO things - one is political alignment, the other is competence. Even if Labour and Reform end up with the same alignment, there's no way Reform would be up to the even slightly competent standards of current Labour.
So you're saying that Reform would be less successful than Labour at implementing their hateful policies?
The really ****ing annoying thing is that, 10 months ago, these clowns had a 170-odd seat majority, five years and a clear mandate for change.
That was the time to put clear water between themselves and the Tories/Reform.
But no. Apart from the IHT on farmers, I can't think of a single thing that would cause the Telegraph editor in chief to choke on his champers.
Now they're locked in a spiral trying to out-nasty Reform - a spiral from which there is probably no escape and definitely no prospect of success.
What a bunch of wannabe boneheads.
Agree Oakwood.
Precisely how I see it. I really do despise what they've done. It's more out of making no opportunity out of hope and their total lack of economic sense that has frustrated the hell out of me.
This was the big one for lots of us - and some of us might now never see another Labour party.
The amount of effort that went into explaining how bad Corbyn was going to be from some Centrists - has been such a poorly calibrated stand point that they wanted this terrible version instead - is mind blowing.
(Tony Robinson prancing off to the polling station is one of the particular low-lights.)
Centrism has fallen (yet again) as a way of running a country because it simply convinces liberals to vote for right-wing positioning on what the centre ground really is. A magic trick for people who claim not to have an ideology.
But no. Apart from the IHT on farmers, I can't think of a single thing that would cause the Telegraph editor in chief to choke on his champers.
Maybe the workers rights bill, although given their track record when that legislation is finalised I would be worried about it final form being watered down.
Even the scrapping of NHS England, which I think we all applauded, turned out to not being the carefully planned process that was claimed, but just another round of damaging unplanned cuts.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/may/06/plan-to-cut-nhs-manager-jobs-reckless-say-critics
The idea that these clowns are the "sensible grown ups" is a complete myth, they aren't doing sweet FA because of careful planning taking time, they are doing FA because that is their DNA, they are paralysed by having no ideology to direct their focus.
There was also VAT on private schools. So, not nothing, but still it's weak beer considering the state of the country and their huge majority which gives them the power to do literally everything they want.
Every single postwar Labour government has carried very significant reforms which have changed and benefited the lives of ordinary working people. Name me a Labour government and I am sure that I can name a great reform which they were responsible for.
Starmer's government will, it looks increasingly likely, be the first to call itself Labour which will leave office without achieving a single reform that has a profound effect on the lives of ordinary working people.
VAT on private school fees however justified it might be does not represent a great reform that will change the lives of ordinary working people. And it is indicative of just how low we are placing the bar for Starmer if we talk of IHT on farmers and VAT on private schools, about two inches off the ground I reckon!
Starmer claims to have changed the DNA of the Labour Party, it looks very much as if he has, this is not a Labour government. You don't need the forensic skills of a top barrister, which he claims to have, to figure out that the DNA is that of another party.
They do have an ideology. They do not see the real interests of capital and labour as being mutually opposed. They enjoy the status and freebies that go with being part of the system and they are financed increasingly by big business. Their foreign policy is determined by the US and their financial policies are determined by the OBR/BoE, they are neoliberals. They are happy to betray the pledges on which they got elected as they will face little internal opposition because people have been expelled or terrified into silence and the leftwingers 'have nowhere else to go'.
They've shown their true colours and recent election results show how popular their policies have been. The continuous moves to the right underlines the fact that electoral political choices are very limitied. There's room for a new party to evolve on the left and it looks like there are moves to get this going, could make it all a bit more interesting.
So you're saying that Reform would be less successful than Labour at implementing their hateful policies?
Probably worse, but I'd guess much worse at handling unfolding events like wars, Trumps etc. Nigel might've avoided tariffs altogether by sucking up to Trump, but you can bet we'd be eating chlorinated chicken already without realising it. And isn't it a stated Reform policy to dismantle the NHS?
There's room for a new party to evolve on the left and it looks like there are moves to get this going, could make it all a bit more interesting.
I agree and this is a brilliant time to do it in my expert political opinion, because the right is shattered as well. If a new left party appears, we'll never have a majority party again, which means we won't have a two-party system, we will be much better represented by the parties we vote for, and we could end up with much better government.
It needs someone with charisma and appeal though, I don't know if we have anyone.
Even if Labour and Reform end up with the same alignment, there's no way Reform would be up to the even slightly competent standards of current Labour.
If all we're interested in is administrative competence then democracy is pointless. We'd be better off with a one party system like China where economists, scientists, engineers and others run the country and make decisions for us. The whole point of democracy is that if one party screws up then another takes its place. If we always vote for the least worst option nothing positive will happen and we'll be stuck in a downward spiral of administrative inertia and inaction (which is where we are now).
There's room for a new party to evolve on the left and it looks like there are moves to get this going, could make it all a bit more interesting.
I agree about the need for a new party and now would be ideal but I don't think it will happen, or at least be successful.
A bunch of disheartened Labour MPs or former party members won't be enough imo, they will probably just fizzle out after the initial fanfare it's what generally happens in similar circumstances.
IMO for it to be successful it needs to be a huge wide-ranging grassroots movement and I don't personally see that happening under the current conditions. Grassroots movements tend to be a reaction to a profound situation and I don't think disappointment in a Labour government quite fits that bill.
Post 2029 general election looks more likely imo. A Reform-Tory coalition government might provide the shock to cause a mass grassroot movement to emerge. If a new left-wing social democratic party does indeed arrive on the scene I can't see how that would not eventually result in the total collapse of Labour. What reason would Labour have for existing?
Agree, the country needs the shock of a Reform government to realise that the things they are believing are not actually based on any truth. Sad that it has come to that but it has been a while coming.
The country 100% doesn't need 5yrs of Reform - the damage they could do would be irreversible for decades.
Liberals, Labour and Green Party need an alliance. We don't need a 4th 'populist' left-wing party splitting the vote even more.
Labour is more than capable of inflicting a 'profound situation' via its planned programme of austerity and historically more strikes occur under Labour governments. A new party might make some MPs look left in the same way some have been pressured into changing their position over Palestine. That in itself would be a positive outcome.
The country 100% doesn't need 5yrs of Reform - the damage they could do would be irreversible for decades.
Like they already did in 2016?
The country 100% doesn't need 5yrs of Reform - the damage they could do would be irreversible for decades.
Liberals, Labour and Green Party need an alliance. We don't need a 4th 'populist' left-wing party splitting the vote even more.
We'd be in desperate straits with a Reform government.
I can see a LibDem/Green alliance being popular. The current Labour government is no longer on the left, sadly, I'm not sure they'd join it, or be allowed to.
As others have said, tragic for the country that Labour have betrayed their roots with so much time and opportunity with that majority.
When have LibDems ever been considered "on the left" ?
Liberals, Labour and Green Party need an alliance. We don't need a 4th 'populist' left-wing party splitting the vote even more.
Labour and the lib dems are not left wing parties, let them continue to split the right wing vote. Give the rest of us who haven't followed labour to the far right someone to vote for.