Forum menu
What’s going to happen in 4 years time then Mystic Meg
No image of Mystic Meg, you are slipping.
What is going to happen in 4 years time is that Labour will lose the election. The government will then be Reform or Tory or a bit of both.
Keep this for posterity if you like.
Granted ‘Inconsequential man who nobody has ever heard of has a bit of a rant’ won’t drum up much interest.
So now you are accusing your favourite newspaper of dishonest headlines...... wha i's the world coming to? Who can we trust??
Obviously you have never heard of Lord Glasman because you are too occupied in attacking the left in the Labour Party than to worry about the Labour hard-right. However if you read the Guardian, which you claim to read every day, more diligently, you would realise that Lord Glasman has been discribed as influential within the Labour Party for years.
As this 13 year article in your favourite newspaper proves :
Ed Miliband's leadership attacked by Lord Glasman
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jan/04/ed-miliband-leadership-lord-glasman
Ed Miliband has come under ferocious pressure to show greater political courage after his close ally Lord Glasman said his leadership seemed to have "no strategy, no narrative and little energy".
Note :
Glasman – often described by the media as Miliband's intellectual guru
So the intellectual guru of a former Labour leader is "Inconsequential" within the Labour Party?
Also note :
He asserts that it looks as "if Labour is stranded in a Keynesian orthodoxy with no language to talk straight to people".
Which betrays the fact that he is a hard-right neoliberal who no doubt considers "Keynesian orthodoxy" to be left-wing extremism.
Mind you soft-left John Prescott [RIP] had the right attitude towards Lord Glasman :
On Twitter, however, the former deputy prime minister John Prescott said: "Glasman. You know sod all about politics, economic policy, Labour or solidarity. Bugger off and go 'organise' some communities!"
Still binners you ignore the hard-right in the Labour Party which is rubbing shoulders with the Trump administration, pushing for racist dog-whistling policies, castigating those they consider to be "progressives", and attacking the concept of government within clear legal boundaries, and instead just focus on the hard-right within the Tory Party which is doing exactly the same thing.
After all as you keep saying politics is just like a game of football which presumably means there are no "right and wrongs"
I'll leave this here
and extract this comment from the article for no particular reason at all.
The research also shows the group is more likely to dislike and criticise those that disagree with them than other voting blocs, a trait the report’s authors argue has contributed to the repeated failure of progressive campaigns and the rise of the global far right. In particular this report finds that a tendency to impose purity tests on those they will campaign with, overestimating how many people share their views
I think it is a bit of a stretch to blame the rise of the right on this group and what they see as the right thing even if they are in a minority. I also don't have a problem with immigration and I support 'woke' culture with the only difference between me and them is I know I am in a minority and am never going to win that battle. The worlr is generally on a downward spiral now and just need to wait for it to come out the other side, assuming it does.
nd extract this comment from the article for no particular reason at all.
We're surely on the same path towards fascism as happened in the 20/30s. Blaming that on loony leftists is laughable though. The pre-WWII period and now share exactly the same features:-
- Massive economic inequality where working people feel disenfranchised and ignored by the state
- Oligarchic power exercised by the ultra-rich
- A comfortable and complacent middle class who think everything will carry on as it is
- A growing underclass of immigrants, unemployed and 'spongers'.
It's got bollocks all to do with lefty chip on the shoulder types who don't like talking to tories.
Let's be fair... many people have seen a noisy minority on the right shift public opinion, change laws, build up barriers between countries, and divide countries... the idea that some of that can (and should) be done in the other "direction" is VERY seductive... but it ignores that fact it's not about "numbers" it's about having the power, money and contacts to force your views into the mainstream... these right wing groups might successfully paint themselves as grassroot movements (hell, even Trump and Musk get to claim this), but they are normally anything but.
Keynes was a Liberal and his 'orthodoxy' was created as a bulwark against the socialist mood of the period. To see his ideas as extreme reflects how much to the right the LP has shifted. How they can't see that neoliberalism doesn't deliver for the many is completely beyond me.
How they can't see that neoliberalism doesn't deliver for the many is completely beyond me.
I think that's the perfect example of what that report is about... for 80% if the population, "neoliberalism" means little... for the remaining 20% its actual meaning is disputed even more than its value or damage.
"...using language that is inaccessible to the wider public is potentially driving a backlash against progressive causes rather than helping them to win people over."
Yep, you need to dumb it down, how about Make Britain great again?
In particular this report finds that a tendency to impose purity tests on those they will campaign with, overestimating how many people share their views
Amusingly if you read the actual report it has several comments about brexit and portraying people as simply led and even mentions accusations of racism as being the driving factor. now who on this forum does that remind you off?
Overall looking at the report its very odd.
It comes up with some extremely biased names for the various groups and also seems to accept statements at face value.
Both the references to free speech and blocking roads spring to mind. It seems more these "progressive activists" are more honest about it versus other groups who say one thing but then put in a bunch of exclusion clauses. The latest PE has this cartoon which covers it well.
Yep, you need to dumb it down, how about Make Britain great again?
Or make the same points, with real language that everyone is agreed on the meaning of.
Start with...
"Privatised water companies are taking the piss, and letting out shit... time to take them back".
Who is not saying that and what inaccessable language is being used leading people to be against it?
and Rachel from Accounts
Casual sexism doesn't help get messages across either, at least not the intended ones
What is going to happen in 4 years time is that Labour will lose the election. The government will then be Reform or Tory or a bit of both.
Keep this for posterity if you like.
How about, given your certainty on the issue Russel Grant, we stick with the time-honoured forum tradition of the pastry-based wager?
Allowing for inflation over 4 years, I reckon a thirty quid Greggs gift card is in order, yeah?
So unless you’re right and we have a Reform or Reform/Tory coalition, you have to buy me lots of pasties and sausage rolls.
You can get my address from one of the many others who’ve lost pie-based bets to me 😉
Every time someone uses terms such as "neoliberalism", they are severely limiting the reach of their message.
Is there any evidence to back up that claim?
It was previously known as Thatcherism so I guess you could return to describing it as such but firstly it isn't a political philosophy unique to the UK, and secondly it is going to mean a lot less to people who are too young to remember Thatcher.
Neoliberalism is an excellent term as it is to some extent self-descriptive. In contrast it isn't obvious that everyone called Thatcher believes in minimal regulations and the benevolent invisible hand of the market.
"Privatised water companies are taking the piss, and letting out shit... time to take them back".
You want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to use language like that in her next budget speech?
Neoliberalism is an excellent term as it is to some extent self-descriptive.
It means different things to different people (and nothing at all to most people). It's highly nebulous with no agreed meaning.
For some it is all free market ideas. For some it is deregulation. For some it is the erosion of state ownership and control of vital services and infrastructure.
Anyway, if you're using that term, you'd better be talking to those that agree with you, it's great for preaching to the converted. It's code that shuts out everyone else.
You want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to use language like that in her next budget speech?
I'd love her to. We really weren't talking about her though, at all, were we.
Anyway, taking your side step.... I'd rather she said that than talk about neoliberalism if she wants to connect to voters.
I'm pro free trade... is that neoliberalism? I'm pro free movement of people. Is that neoliberalism? It's all too vague. And, again, it's insider code.
It's highly nebulous with no agreed meaning.
Try googling "neoliberalism" the meaning is perfectly clear.
It's code that shuts out everyone else.
Do you know the meaning of code? It is not a code, it is a clearly defined political-economic theory just like Keynesian is. And the only persons it is likely to shut out are denialist who prefer to pretend that it isn't the ideological base of the current government.
The current global political battles are due to the crisis created by neoliberalism, the choice now is whether to abandon neoliberalism or double down in the hope that more of it will somehow resolve all the problems it has created.
The current UK government seems to have embraced the latter. Who would have thought that after the ditching of the Keynesian post-war consensus 45 years ago, and all the deregulation, cutting of red tape, bonfires of quangos, etc, that came with that, there would still be need for further deregulation and cutting of red tape?
Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves definitely believe it is necessary.......all those years of Tory rule with all their government regulations and red tape, eh?
I'm not taking pleasure, what a strange thing to say.
You can invent whatever narrative you like, but to spin my words as 'taking pleasure' is simply your own twisted opinion.
It's touching that you felt the need to reply to the same post three times, but really, if you meant something else, try using different words. Or carry on rubbing your thighs, but at least show some honesty.
If you can't debate without ad hominem jibes then you'll get this thread shut down.
How about, given your certainty on the issue Russel Grant, we stick with the time-honoured forum tradition of the pastry-based wager?
Allowing for inflation over 4 years, I reckon a thirty quid Greggs gift card is in order, yeah?
Make it £100 cash and you are on (I am not supporting Greggs as they are part of the poor health problem)
The bet is £100 to go to a charity of our choice that Labour will lose the next election and the winning party of the next election will be Tory or Reform or a coalition between them.
I am basing this on Labour being shit, the general rise of right wing and the people and money behind it. What are you basing your thoughts that Labour will win on?
If you can't debate without ad hominem jibes then you'll get this thread shut down.
I'm perfectly happy to debate without jibes but they're used on this thread and others as a matter of course. Is this a new moderation direction for the forum?
And, again, it's insider code.
The problem is all the terms you use are equally nebulous. For example "free trade" has multiple meanings and interpretations.
I am basing this on Labour being shit, the general rise of right wing and the people and money behind it. What are you basing your thoughts that Labour will win on?
I've not mentioned a labour win, have I? I've not predicted anything. I'm not that daft.
The old adage about a week being a long time in politics is magnified to the nth degree with Trump now in power. 4 years is an eternity. Literally anything could happen between now and 2029. Lets be honest, the entire country could be a smouldering post-apocolyptic wasteland in the grip of a nuclear winter by then.
I've not mentioned a labour win, have I?
You have inferred it. If the Tories or Reform don't win then Labour would be the winners. So why do you think Labour would be the winners? Or can't you say as they have only been in for 6 months?
You have inferred it.
Have I?
If the polls are saying anything (and I personally think they're utterly irrelevent at this point in proceedings), they're saying that the vote is so split - 4 ways - that nobody is going to get an overall majority. Like last time I suspect most people will unenthusiastically voting for the least worst option
How that vote will split when it comes to actually winning seats in out FPTP system is anyones guess. We could still potentially end up with another Labour government, another Tory one, a Reform one. Unlikely though, so thats when the horse trading starts. More likely a Lab/Lib coalition, another Con/Lib allience, a Reform/Con government or maybe something even weirder. Our political system might completely implode and we could end up having elections every other month for ever.
Who knows? I certainly don't. And I'd say if you're prepared to put money on the outcome of an election in 4 years time, in the present climate, you may as well set fire to it. I'm sure you'd find a bookie who'll happily take your money though. Good luck
So unless you’re right and we have a Reform or Reform/Tory coalition, you have to buy me lots of pasties and sausage rolls.
.
I've not mentioned a labour win, have I? I've not predicted anything. I'm not that daft.
You haven't predicted anything because you aren't that daft?
So you are actually saying that you usually bet on things that you aren't sure about.
That is definitely a new angle on the phrase "I bet you"
Ernesto... comrade... do you undertand how betting works? It would appear not.
I've not predicted anything. As I said... I'm not that daft. Hence I'm not placing bets. I'm saying that I haven't got a clue what will happen, but if you're daft enough to predict it then put something on it. Thats how this generally tends to go. Ask the bookies. They make a fortune out of people like our friend here confidently predicting that they know exactly whats going to happen, but are rarely right
And if you're looking for advice on where to place bets, the last place on earth you'd look for tips is an echo chamber of people who generally think the same way that you do, which is what every politics thread becomes when yourself and your fellow PFJ members get together 😀
I personally think they're utterly irrelevent at this point in proceedings
Your leader doesn't appear to agree with you. It is now widely accepted that a sense of panic over growing support for Reform has gripped the Labour leadership. Hence from your favourite newspaper :
On Friday, Starmer told his cabinet ministers they had to be the “disrupters if you don’t want to be disrupted”. He meant disrupted by Reform UK.
And chilling videos from the party are expected this week to show the terrible journey illegal immigrants to the UK face by buses and planes as they are deported by a government showing zero tolerance towards those whose asylum claims are rejected.
do you undertand how betting works? It would appear not.
Yes I understand how betting works. What I don't understand though is why when debating politics you constantly come up with stuff like this "you have to buy me lots of pasties and sausage rolls"
What is the point of that if it doesn't reflect something that you are certain about? Generally speaking when two people have two opposing opinions and one says "I bet you...." it is generally to emphasis that they are certain about something.
If that isn't the reason that you do it what is your reason? Is just to remind everyone of your hilariously unhealthy "working-class" diet?
Anyway... getting back on topic away from William Hill.....
In the same way that Covid made short work of Boris Johnsons agenda (such as that was) and huge majority, I'd say that having Trump swaggering about, tearing up the post-war, rules-based world order is going to have a similar effect on the immediate future.
Its going to be how Starmer and this government is going to be judged is on how it responds to that. Lets face it, post-Brexit, this country is in an absolutely terrible position, caught in the middle of an international trade war, alone and friendless. Theres a whole world of 'Unknown Unknowns' out there right now, all of which are about to have an enormous impact on the UK economy
I certainly wouldn't fancy his job. Would you? At least, compared to the previous few years, we do seem to have a grown up in charge
this country is in an absolutely terrible position,
With relatively low inflation and unemployment, and no recession, the UK has been in much worse positions on multiple occasions in the last 50 years.
I totally agree that being UK Prime Minister is an extraordinarily difficult job though. Being Leader of the Opposition is always going to be much easier. Especially when the government is totally inept.
And I'd say if you're prepared to put money on the outcome of an election in 4 years time, in the present climate, you may as well set fire to it. I'm sure you'd find a bookie who'll happily take your money though. Good luck
I don't need to find a bookie. You offered the bet/wager. "How about, given your certainty on the issue Russel Grant, we stick with the time-honoured forum tradition of the pastry-based wager?" and now seem to be reneging on it. So £100 to a charity of our choice - you win if Labour win, I win if Labour lose.
and now seem to be reneging on it.
Can't a man change his mind? Starmer has done it loads of times.
It's what grown-ups do. Apparently.
On the basis that Binners offered a bet of a £30 Greggs voucher that "Labour will lose the next election and the winning party of the next election will be Tory or Reform or a coalition between them"
and you've now turned it into a £100 bet that Labour will lose, with no proviso on the winner, it's hardly reneging on the bet. It's a different bet, and one that he's perfectly entitled to decline. 'Changing your mind' when circumstances change seems an entirely proportional and grown up thing to do.
But if you are allowed to change the terms and consider that failure to agree is 'reneging' - I assume he can counter by betting you £500 that the next PM won't be a Martian. Don't go weaselling out now.....
you've now turned it into a £100 bet
Now the steaks are too high!
(bad cow pun)
surely the steak bakes?
So you are actually saying that you usually bet on things that you aren't sure about.
Erm... yes. Unless you're a member of a shadowy and terrifying Mafioso betting syndicate, who's paid somebody a large bung to take a dive in the fifth, lest members of their family might meet with an unfortunate accident, thats generally how betting works, yes.
You should have a word with Mrs Binners about how it works. Her betting is generally so successful (unlike mine), I'm beginning to suspect that she may indeed be a member of a shadowy and terrifying Mafioso betting syndicate.
Your understanding of the gambling industry seems so limited and confused, I suspect if I left her in your company for the aftenroon, by the end of the day she'd end up owning your house 😀
Your understanding of the gambling industry seems so limited and confused
I think my understanding of the gambling industry is probably a bit more than you give me credit for. As is my understanding of what people mean when in the midst of a disagreement with someone they say "I bet you...". It is very obviously to emphasis that they feel certain about something.
And if you can't see that then it suggests a fairly limited understanding of the English language and how it is used in everyday speech.
Anyway I think the psychology behind references to gambling has been done to death, getting back to the original point I actually totally agree with you, ie it is totally impossible to predict any general election, and not least one over 4 years away!
It is however perfectly possible and reasonable to predict likely possibilities, for example it reasonable to assume that the LibDems won't win the next general election and it won't result in a LibDem prime minister.
Likewise it is becoming increasingly likely that the largest party after the next general election will be Reform UK and that astonishingly Nigel Farage will become PM.
I still think that on balance that probably won't happen because I suspect that Nigel Farage is simply too toxic for the average UK voter, according to polls Farage is apparently almost as unpopular as Keir Starmer, so when push comes to shove voters will I suspect loose their bottle. Hopefully.
But right now support for Reform UK is not only unprecedented but growing, whilst support for Labour has very clearly collapsed. As the very latest poll out today shows :
https://twitter.com/FindoutnowUK/status/1892534191369138269
for example it reasonable to assume that the LibDems won't win the next general election and it won't result in a LibDem prime minister.
Do you reckon? I've not ruled out that in 4 years time a bungee jumping Ed Davey will be seen by many as the sanest adult in the room.
Likewise it is becoming increasingly likely that the largest party after the next general election will be Reform UK and that astonishingly Nigel Farage will become PM.
In your head, maybe?
Would you be prepared to bet a 30 quid Greggs voucher on that outcome though?
I’d suggest a safe hedging bet against that would be on Reform imploding before the next general election and the Man Frog leading another Limited Company owned entirely by himself into the vote instead
Odds between those two outcomes? Evens, I reckon
Do you reckon? I've not ruled out that in 4 years time a bungee jumping Ed Davey will be seen by many as the sanest adult in the room.
I am frankly astonished how low support for the LibDems has been since the last general election, you would expect them to be raking in the votes. As it is their support appears to be about the same as it was in the general election and about half of what it was 15 years ago.
In your head, maybe?
No not in my head, in reality. About a month ago the shocking news was that Reform was just one point behind Labour, now almost all the opinion polls are showing Reform in front of Labour.
The reality is that support for Reform is growing and it looks increasingly likely that they will be the largest party at the next general election. Which is presumably why the Labour leadership is panicking and now resorting to dog-whistling racism.
I’d suggest a safe hedging bet against that would be on Reform imploding before the next general election and the Man Frog leading another Limited Company owned entirely by himself into the vote instead
Luckily you don't predict anything eh? And yeah parties who support is growing massively and are riding high in the polls tend to 'implode', in your head 😜
I can speculate on anything I like Ernesto, same as anyone else. The point I’ve made is that it’s exactly that… idle rambling. I wouldn’t be stupid enough to regard it as anything other than brainfarts and stick any money on it.
Polls taken 4 years out from an election are utterly pointless. They amount to nothing more than speculation really. To use another betting reference… It’s like watching Spurs score in the first 5 minutes of a game, then immediately sticking all the money you have on them winning after 90 minutes.
You’d have to be mad!