Forum menu
poor leader, unable to deliver on what he promised
Corbyn was definitely a poor 'leader' there is no doubt about that, but it was the centrists who made sure that he didn't deliver. Can you name me a party leader who has won a general election whilst his MPs were stabbing him in the back?
What do you believe he promised btw?
he’s done one thing Corbyn failed to and that was win an election
No Starmer never 'won' the general election, the Tories lost it, big time. That is precisely why the polls became dire for Labour immediately after the general election. People voted the Tories out, they didn't vote Labour in, hence the catastrophic lack of support for Labour now.
I think what Starmer has managed to do that Corbyn didn't is to take support for Labour down to about 25%
Can you name me a party leader who has won a general election whilst his MPs were stabbing him in the back?
Good ones get the party to stop stabbing them, or ideally not start stabbing them in the first place. For a while at least.
There’s not really much back-stabby about resigning or refusing to serve in his cabinet while publicly telling everyone it’s because you think he’s absolutely ****ing hopeless, is there?
That's plunging the blade straight through the ribcage
Anyway… constantly deposing leaders or plotting to do so didn’t seem to do the Tory party much harm for the last 14 years. They’re always at it. They’ll be a gang of them planning to unseat Badanoch already. You can put your house on it.
Good ones get the party to stop stabbing them,
I totally agree, Corbyn was definitely a shite leader with his "kinder" politics bollocks. Typical poncey guardian reading jam making bicycle clip wearing tw4t.
Now I definitely wouldn't claim that Keir Starmer is a good leader but look how he doesn't **** about with those who don't tow his forever changing line ...... it's suspension, expulsions, deselections, withdrawal of the whip, whatever it takes to silence his critics.
Although to be fair a big chunk of the PLP are self-serving careerists with no genuine convictions like himself, so he does have that in his favour.
Child poverty is on course to increase in most of the UK by the end of this parliament, with only Scotland bucking the trend, according to analysis by a poverty charity.
And this without Scotland having the economic levers the Westminster government has. Shows how much its a political choice and shows how unambitious.labour are
This is the response to desperate times currently then?
Something that may or may not happen; London centric and with massive opposition to it. In several years if not at all.
And put growth in massive letters (fading just so we understand there won't be growth.)
These people are the most disingenuous misanthropes ever elected under a Labour banner.
Absolute sheer desperation that you can talk about something in present tense that will not affect growth if at all for years.
I would say this is another to add to the catalogue of big Starmer/Reeves fails in not working out what society needs now.
(Labour backing a runway is not actually the same as Labour building it.)
This poster is peak centrism. Let's back but not invest. (Something that even Cameron didn't even want to pull off in the end.)
Anything about this in the manifesto?
Child poverty is on course to increase in most of the UK by the end of this parliament, with only Scotland bucking the trend, according to analysis by a poverty charity.
Another example of negative reporting. No wonder the polls are poor, I'm surprised so many on here seize on these headlines so gleefully, unless there's an ulterior motive.
I have emphasised some points to illustrate what I consider unfair reporting.
Here's a selection of other quotes from the article.
only in Scotland will rates have fallen by 2029 under current economic projections
The government is due to publish a 10-year poverty strategy in the summer.
ministerial taskforce is exploring all levers available across government to give children across the United Kingdom the best start in life,
increasing the living wage, uprating benefits and supporting 700,000 of the poorest families with children by introducing a fair repayment rate on universal credit deductions to help low-income families and make everyone better off
Meanwhile in Scotland -
Setting out her draft Budget at Holyrood, Robison said she would aim to provide funding to the families of the 15,000 affected children in Scotland by April 2026 - a month ahead of the next Scottish election.
It is not yet clear what the mechanism will be to scrap the cap, how it will work, or how much it will cost.
So on one hand plans to review the whole system aren't counted, whereas on the other plans that are not yet in place and have no economic assessment are a done deal?
And?
My point is not on the merits or otherwise of what is or isn't in place, or the plans or aspirations of the various governments. It's on the negative reporting. Do you think the article presents a balanced view? If not, why are you so happy to just repeat it?
Seems perfectly reasonable to me taking data from good sources to make a report from a reputable orgsnisation
If ypu are onbenefits in Scotland and have more than 2 children you are significantly better off than if you lived in England as things stand right now
Labour ard not going to remove the two child cap. Holyrood is looking to further increase benefits
S
Anything about this in the manifesto?
Well, that’s a very fair point. If airport expansion really is a key part of Labour’s plans, why not include it in the manifesto? That’s shifty, to say the least.
Absolute sheer desperation that you can talk about something in present tense that will not affect growth if at all for years.
Short-termism. The UK needs longer term thinking. The idea that you shouldn’t announce plans for long term projects because we don’t have any significant growth right now is just self defeating. The opposite is true.
Labour are incapable of anything but shrinking the economy. Their past record proves it.
The runway i doubt will be completed for 20 years or so, banking growth on that is absurd.
'Growth' aka 'trickle down'.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me taking data from good sources to make a report from a reputable orgsnisation
I'm not talking about the JRF report, I'm talking of the way it has been reported by the Guardian, and no doubt others. And then the way you and others pounce on this unbalanced reporting
The facts are:
UK and Scottish Governments have both indicated intent to tackle (child) poverty by different routes.
Westminster are reviewing multiple areas and will come up with a strategy in the summer. As yet no detail / costing.
Holyrood have announced a commitment to develop the systems to deliver the mitigation of the two-child cap, which will lift 15,000 children out of poverty. As yet no detail / costing on how that will be done.
Yet the Scottish approach is laudable and the Westminster one is unambitious?
Scotland already Has mitigations in place and are looking at more. Labour are committed to retained the two child cap.
What you say is the situation us not the actual situation
The reporting is quite fair given announced policy and the actual facts
You are already significantly better off in scotland if on benefits and have 3 kids. And in future this differnce will increase
Labour are incapable of anything but shrinking the economy. Their past record proves it.
Im not sure thats entirely true
even with financial crisis economy had grown compared to when they came in to power
The runway i doubt will be completed for 20 years or so, banking growth on that is absurd.
its a good job that the runway isnt the only policy announced, there were quite a few new developments and the Ox-Cam science arc is what we need more of, the infrastructure and planning bill in the spring is much more important in terms of improving the fabric of the UK
Spain has built >3000km of HS rail in the time its taken us to build 65km (HS1) and not build 110km (HS2) and at 10x less per km, that highlights something very wrong with how the UK does things. HS rail (among other things) needs to be completed further north too
John v
As you say the westminster plan has no detail at all and remember they are committed to tbe two child cap . Its a review that will not come into place for a while and no commitment to anything
Holyrood while already having the scottish child payment has made a commitment to remove the two child cap completely this year
The two positions are very different. One has already extra payments and a commttment to more. The other has no commitments at all bar the previous refusal to remove the cap
Westminster are reviewing multiple areas and will come up with a strategy in the summer.
You are making out that no decisions have been made and that Labour are busy working out how to tackle child poverty. And according to you they will have answers after they have been in government for a full year.
Well firstly Starmer and his team have had years to come up with a strategy to tackle child poverty - Labour winning the general election came as a surprise to no one.
And secondly your claim that no decisions have been made isn't true - within literally two or three weeks of coming to power the current government decided not to scrap the two child benefit cap, with devastating consequences for child poverty.
In fact the current government are so committed to maintaining this Tory policy that they withdrew the party whip from any MP who voted against their decision.
Rachel Reeves doubles down on refusal to scrap two-child benefit cap
"Scrapping the policy would lift an estimated 300,000 children out of poverty"
There isn't some weird anti-Labour conspiracy involving the Guardian, the Independent, the Child Poverty Action Group, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and a multitude of other child welfare charity.
If headlines such as "Rachel Reeves doubles down on refusal to scrap two-child benefit cap" are shit for Labour then perhaps blame the government, not the headline writer.....there is no point shooting the messenger.
Westminster are reviewing multiple areas and will come up with a strategy in the summer. As yet no detail / costing.
That's the funniest thing I've read on this thread. If anyone's in any doubt about why Starmer and Labour are up to their necks in shit look no further than this observation.
London centric
Ok let's clear something up. Just because a project is in London, doesn't mean it only benefits London.
Have we done this yet?
The comparison with Truss is probably the best description I've heard yet for Starmer and Reeves. So much for grown-up sensible politics, lets just build loads of random stuff instead! Apart from hospitals of course, we can't afford them apparently, but we can afford billions on airports and roads.
Really looking forward to how the STW c*ntrist cabal justify this one.
Labour are incapable of anything but shrinking the economy. Their past record proves it.
Remind me of what happened 1997(?)-2010 would you?
We had a global economic crisis the consequences of which David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Vince Cable, and Danny Alexander, managed to quite successfully blame Labour for !
How Labour delt with that crisis was actually the one thing that most impressed me during their 13 years in government.
Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling did not hesitate to take immediate action which helped to protect ordinary working people. It is quite astonishing how minimal the consequences were for ordinary working people considering how dire and serious the crisis was.
It would have undoubtedly been very different if the Tories and LibDems had been in government.
It would have undoubtedly been very different if the Tories and LibDems had been in government.
If Starmer and Reeves had been in power no doubt they'd have said we can't afford to bail out the banks because it would break their fiscal rules and scare the markets.
Ok let’s clear something up. Just because a project is in London, doesn’t mean it only benefits London.
In general maybe tho its arguable. In the case of the third runway it certainly is. Manchester airport makes much more sense from a uk wide perspective. Folk have to travel from Scotland and the north of england to get flights going past a perfectly good airport with great transport connections
Folk have to travel from Scotland and the north of england to get flights going past a perfectly good airport with great transport connections
I've said similar for years, freeing up capacity at Heathrow by building capacity in the north of England or Scotland to facilitate long haul travel makes way more sense than increasing the number of flights in and out London. I think we all know that's never going to happen tho
By “we” you mean who?
I think Daz probably means himself and others who never use Heathrow.
Additionally, more than £10bn in additional rail and road spending to support a bigger airport would be laid on the public purse, they say. “What is certain is that taxpayers everywhere – including those living hundreds of miles away from the south-east – will all be paying for the expansion.”
To give it some sort of context a medium size general hospital costs roughly £0.5bn to build, so that's roughly the cost of 20 new hospitals.
The private owners of Heathrow airport who will be paying for the runway?
You seriously think this will all be privately funded? Man U can't even build a new stadium without the taxpayer subsidising them, how is Heathrow going to fund the billions required for a new runway without govt help?
You seriously think this will all be privately funded? Man U can’t even build a new stadium without the taxpayer subsidising them, how is Heathrow going to fund the billions required for a new runway without govt help?
Same way any other business attracts funding I guess, basically by promising investors a share of future profits or some such.
As far as I can see there's no indication that public funds will be used for pay for the additional runway.
You seriously think this will all be privately funded? Man U can’t even build a new stadium without the taxpayer subsidising them
Sir Jim tried that one. The government told him to **** off.
There’s not a penny of taxpayers money going to Manchester United. The government money is going to redeveloping freight terminals on Trafford Park, a bloody massive industrial estate which just happens to be near Old Trafford (the clues in the name).
Last time I looked that had nothing to do with paying Marcus Rashfords ludicrous salary.
Additionally, more than £10bn in additional rail and road spending to support a bigger airport would be laid on the public purse, etc
That article is six years old , Reeves has said transport infrastructure costs are to be paid by the private sector
“Reeves said the government was “inviting proposals to move forward by the summer”, emphasising she would expect the private sector to fund any additional transport connections needed as part of the project.”
Fair point, but your quote which dates from yesterday says she "would expect the private sector to fund any additional transport connections needed as part of the project.”
Saying she expects the private sector to fund it is not the same as saying that it will. I guess her priority is to get the proposal through, she can always say at a later date, when the whole thing has advanced considerably, "well I did expect the private sector to fund the infrastructure costs but unfortunately they lack the finance required and we need to move forward ".
And this is after all a business friendly government.
So the impact assessment from the plan to smash the people smuggling gangs in Calais says that between 0 and 3 extra prison places will be required.
I wish that I could give a lower estimate of 0 for the impact of my work, it'd make it far easier.
I don't know how but this government still retains the ability to surprise and genuinely shock me.
The Labour Party, which won power in July, also plans to retain parts of legislation passed by the previous Conservative government that will disqualify asylum seekers using modern slavery laws to challenge decisions to remove them, and the power to detain child asylum seekers for up to 28 days.
Labour had voted against those measures in parliament when legislation on them was passed in 2023.
Starmer said at the time that the decision to deny asylum seekers using modern slavery laws would "drive a coach and horses" through protections for women trafficked to Britain.
Jess Phillips, now a junior interior minister, said in 2023 the legislation was a "traffickers' dream" because it would hide victims of modern slavery.
It's not so much that are they are retaining the Tory legislation which I find so shocking, it is the fact that are retaining it after condemning it so strongly........ they don't actually believe anything they say do they? And they are utterly shameless.
I actually remember Jess Phillips kicking up a stink about this when she was Shadow Minister for Domestic Abuse.
Dated July 26 2023
MPs have now passed the Illegal Migration Bill. The legislation rolls back protections for victims of slavery who have arrived in the UK illegally, often against their will.
Young women who have been raped multiple times a day in brothels, people who have been forced to work in unsafe conditions for pennies when they were promised legitimate jobs, will be criminalised rather than having the support they deserve.
Jess Phillips MP, the Shadow Minister for Domestic Abuse and Safeguarding, also offered hope. Speaking at an event hosted by our Joint Unit, she said that a Labour government would disentangle modern slavery from immigration crime.
She reminded us that one in four victims of modern slavery are British nationals, with children particularly vulnerable, and called for a strategic criminal justice response to increase the number of prosecutions and convictions. We need a multi-agency response to support survivors and more action from businesses to ensure their supply chains are free of slave labour.
https://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/newsroom/the-fight-against-modern-slavery-goes-on
So the problem isn't that Labour don't understand how bad the legislation is, it's just like the Tories they don't really care.
Theresa May’s speech against barring asylum seekers from using the laws put in place to protect trafficked and enslaved people was spot on. Worth reading/watching again.
If that Reuters article is right (I notice there’s no comment or statement from a government minister or civil servant in there), then Labour have got this wrong. The new changes being introduced to uncover people smuggling networks sound appropriate, the bill looks sound to me as regards what it seeks to do, and how. Stopping asylum seekers from using laws and systems designed to protect victims of modern slavery, and identifying those that enslave them, is entirely counterproductive, as well as inhumane, and needs to be ended ASAP. If not as part of this bill, then by other means.
Illegal migration bill will hurt women trafficked to UK, Starmer tells PM
Labour leader attacks plans, but Rishi Sunak calls Starmer ‘just another lefty lawyer standing in our way’
Rishi Sunak’s plan to stop small boat crossings will “drive a coach and horses” through protections for women who are trafficked to Britain as victims of modern slavery, Keir Starmer has said.
If that Reuters article is right (I notice there’s no comment or statement from a government minister or civil servant in there)
Well I can imagine that it might be difficult to find a minister who wants to defend this 18 months after Labour denounced it so strongly.
It does seem to be reported in multiple media outlets including the United States. Some brownie points will no doubt be awarded by Trump supporters.
That’s the same story. Reuters’ work is syndicated. As I said, if this story and headline is correct, then Labour have got this wrong.
Well yes I see that, my point wasn't that it was a different story rather it was that multiple media outlets/news providers are reporting it which suggests that it is considered to be credible.
I truly hope it isn't quite as it appears to be but if that was the case I would expect a Labour minister to very quickly put the record straight.
Totally coincidentally I was at a seminar about human trafficking and modern slavery last night. **** me it was depressing, especially when it was pointed out that the phone in my hand probably contains material which was mined by children, and some of the fruit I eat (I love fresh fruit) was probably picked by modern day slaves
If this all sounds strangely familiar, that’s because it is. As both Labour and Tory MPs have been pointing out, significant chunks of Reeves and Starmer’s plans and rhetoric bear a striking similarity to an unusual source of inspiration: Liz Truss.
Like them, Truss identified growth as the biggest challenge facing the government and believed in much the same prescription: planning reform, scaling back government regulation, cutting benefits and making the state more efficient. She even sacked the permanent secretary to the Treasury in her own version of taking on the blockers.
As the former prime minister put it in her much derided 2022 conference speech: “We must break down the barriers to growth built up in our system. Decisions take too long. Burdens on businesses are too high. Infrastructure projects get delayed for years.
“That is what our plan is about: it is about getting the economy growing.”
Some senior Conservatives who served in the Truss administration cannot quite believe what they are hearing from Labour and are torn between their natural instinct to attack the government and agreeing with many of the things they are doing.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan, who served as Truss’s transport secretary, said: “I am cheering them on. I don’t know if it is ‘Liz Reeves’ or ‘Rachel Truss’, but it is fascinating to see Labour acknowledge that the kind of reforms to planning and the judicial review system that Liz Truss began are both right and necessary..
It is hard to make a direct comparison, because figures are very handily (for thoose who want to disguise reality) presented very differently. But this is my best stab at working it out in a
Since 2000 wages have grown about 66%.
Inflation has run much higher than that, the cost of goods and services have risen about 125% in that period
Since 2000 uk share prices have more than doubled, again probably around 125% more than 2000.
Since 2000 the average UK house price has risen from 75,000 to 240,000, more than 200%
There is a serious problem with the distribution of wealth and growth without fairer distribution will only exasperate the problem not fix it. The wealthiest 10% are doing very nicely indeed, the next 30-40% are probably about nuetral (the growth in assets for them have gone someway to offeset the real fall in earnings, I suspect this is the group most who keep defending the current system on here are in).
The bottom 50% are suffering more and more every year, and will also becoe a growing %.
Younger generations entering the workforce have worse condition and far far less oportunity to get on the asset ladder, housing and pensions take are a massive part of most peoples lifelong costs, and people are paying far more for far less. There is a big generational cost to the way assets have been outstripping wage growth.
Arranging the deckchairs on the titanic is not going to fix these problems, we don't need to just temprarially slow down the transfer of wealth to the top, we need to reverse it. "Living in the real world" as the centrists like to claim they are, is just adjusting the speed in which we aproach distopia.