MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Well I would like any politician who is mired in a sex trafficking scandal to be removed, you seem to think its ok though. why is that?
The knives will be out for Starmer now. He's clearly bowed to the will of Labour MPs. If he no longer has them behind him he's finished.
Lmfao. He's hardly got a great track record across the board.
Scandal prone politician sacked over a scandal. There was always a good chance of it ending this way.
the starmer stuff is very obvious BS thats been amplified heavily by pro russian Putin/farage fans, with a bit of homophobia thrown in
as for mandelson...
this is what he was currently negotiating for the UK and looks like he has failed, US pharma is currently (at the behest of Trump ) putting the screws on the NHS to make us pay more for drugs , the consequences are immediate job losses (i know some of the people and they were notified hours before it hit the press) and a huge funding gap in a critical UK industry as well as job losses on the new building over the road
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgzyxjr0lzo
That's a strange spin to put on it, the companies clearly state it is because of a lack of investment in the sector, just another victim of the continued austerity, nothing to do with Mandelson.
This labour governments continued acceptance of the right wing framing of the economy is at fault, and Mandelson was not the solution to that.
That's a strange spin to put on it
From that article...
"Pharmaceutical companies have been refocusing on investing in the US following pressure from President Donald Trump, including threats of sky-high tariffs on drug imports."
The UK, well the NHS, hasn't seen its drugs bill increase as fast as other countries' healthcare systems. POTUS has explicitly said that he's not happy with that, and that it must change. "Under investing" here means that the NHS has successfully kept the cost of drugs down, and now the USA have a president using his powers (and leveraged some some powers that traditionally haven't been the remit of the president) to push companies to increase costs to the UK, and to leave the UK sites to focus on USA research and production. All this is doubly damaging, because a reduction in joint UK/USA collaboration in this area is on top of the UK making more it more difficult for those cited here to collaborate with other countries in Europe.
the drug company said the decision "reflects the challenges of the UK not making meaningful progress towards addressing the lack of investment in the life science industry and the overall undervaluation of innovative medicines and vaccines by successive UK governments".
"Lack of investment and undervaluation" here means low prices... as per the POTUS complaints about the UK health "market".
In 2018, for example, the UK spent just 9% of its total health spending on medicines. This is a remarkably low proportion of the budget compared to France, which spent 15% of its health budget on medicine; Germany, Japan, and Italy, which all spent 17%; or Spain, which spent 18% of its health budget on medicines. This lower level of spending may be partially accounted for by the rebates paid to government by industry, together with NICE’s evaluation of cost effectiveness and NHS England’s commercial negotiation approach, which are putting increasing downward pressure on prices.
There is also a reduction in R&D in life sciences in the UK more generally since Brexit, because, well... but UK Government expenditure in R&D has remained high. It is planned to stay high:
Over the Spending Review period, 2026/27 to 2029/30, investment in R&D will be £86 billion overall, rising from £20.4 billion in 2025/26 to £22.6 billion in 2029/30.
That's a strange spin to put on it, the companies clearly state it is because of a lack of investment in the sector, just another victim of the continued austerity
its not spin, i work in the building, everyone knows (including the MSD staff losing their jobs) that this is about access to the NHS, and that the trump admin has put this pressure on , we also have the World Influenza Centre here and its buts what Trump has done to them.
reflects the challenges of the UK not making meaningful progress towards addressing the lack of investment in the life science industry and the overall undervaluation of innovative medicines and vaccines by successive UK governments".
as Kelvin points out the UK is only really behind USA & China in government investment in life sciences so the first point is false, the second 'undervaluation' part is key -we pay a lot less for drugs than almost all other countries and Trump really doesn't like that , the NHS is also quite good at using expired patent drugs that cost a lot less, Trump has vowed to change that.
Starmer called SEP 1st - phase 2 of the government.
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1962514623921263061?t=b--FqMAT-SIYYc7_5wL1nA&s=19
1) Rayner
2) Mandelson
3) Zero-growth in July for the hell of it.
In 12 days.
Starmer's judgment over Mandelson was bizarrely stupid. There's more to come from this I reckon - with Labour MPs not impressed at all.
If Labour want to even begin to survive - he needs to go. Time to admit he's not very good. Get your head out of the sand.
Starmer's judgment over Mandelson was bizarrely stupid.
Now we know that Mandleson’s continued contact with Epstein came up when he was appointed… I have to agree with that point.
If Labour want to even begin to survive - he needs to go. Time to admit he's not very good. Get your head out of the sand.
Yep, replace him now and still have 4 years left but who would they replace him with?
Any comments from the people who were supportive of Starmer and happy when he won election or still deadly quiet?
If Labour want to even begin to survive - he needs to go. Time to admit he's not very good. Get your head out of the sand.
Yep, replace him now and still have 4 years left but who would they replace him with?
Any comments from the people who were supportive of Starmer and happy when he won election or still deadly quiet?
I've no idea but surely they can't be worse?
The Labour right are a seriously misjudged and badly executed plan that won't recalibrate and keeping Starmer is dragging the whole Labour brand into oblivion.
I'd sooner Labour have a proper reset (in terms of ideology as much as leader) than just going in the direction they're going.
There is absolutely nothing to lose.
I've got a bet on with my Dad. I think Starmer will be gone by Xmas and he reckons he will hang on.
One more big cock up and he's done. (The budget is likely to be economically unsound.)
(In many ways I don't care for Labour now as I'm a green member but we're talking damage limitation currently. )
Writing's on the wall for Starmer now.
Re support - I'm not 'team Starmer' or team anyone, if that's you're your fishing for a fight with. I voted for him (yes, I know, shut up) because a Labour govt was by far the best option from what was available and I certainly thought he could be good. Turns out he isn't, at least not visibly. Clearly there are some massive issues to solve that were always going to be unpopular, but he's not that great at politics. I feel like the plan was always get him and his team to start fixing the huge amount of shit that was backed up waiting to hit the fan, become unpopular, then leave. That time might be coming soon.
There are clearly many issues. But they could have done popular things too.
It's not a bad thing to get the country that is falling apart on side with good politics or fiscal support. There was none of that. All dropped to claim daft 'savings' of 2.5bn here and there which on a 1.2bn budget is neither here nor there. (Government can't save irrespective.)
They came to power with the tough choices bullshit which we didn't want and in many cases was perfunctory. Many have suffered enough. They didn't seem to realise we've had years of tough choices. We wanted a plan and improvements.
This wasn't factored in.
Each Labour government clearly gets more right-wing and we've had enough of it. It's like a repetitive strain injury.
I've got a bet on with my Dad. I think Starmer will be gone by Xmas and he reckons he will hang on
I agree with your father. Starmer will hang on but if things do not improve with cost of living, no matter how good a person he can be he will be gone because the PM role is simply too big for him to shoulder.
The scary part is that I cannot see any capable leadership from left, right or centre in the current crop of politicians.
Any comments from the people who were supportive of Starmer and happy when he won election or still deadly quiet?
Pretty much what Kimbers said, hes definitely cocked up the presentation, never going to be popular at a policy level, the country has been screwed by the Tories and world instability isnt helping. I spoke to my now Labour MP when he was campaigning (known him for a long time through voluntary activity) and said they expected they needed 2 terms to fix stuff.
My biggest disappointment is his reluctantance to tackle the MAGA culture growing in country, he's never going to win over those ig grant idiots so why pander to them, hes just increasing their ranks by making it OK to have 'legitimate concerns about immigration'. I have legitimate concerns about immigration but recognise its historic, complicated and not a major issue unless we make it one. None of my concerns justify going on a racist rampage like Reform are encouraging.
My biggest disappointment is his reluctantance to tackle the MAGA culture growing in country, he's never going to win over those ig grant idiots
Genuine question - if the Instagram idiots will never be won over, is there any point in plunging into the culture wars? They can take up an infinite amount of time, and every minute you fight a culture war is a minute you're not spending fixing hospitals or whatever.
I spoke to my now Labour MP when he was campaigning (known him for a long time through voluntary activity) and said they expected they needed 2 terms to fix stuff.
I think even that may be optimistic. However they need to do enough in this term to get a second one.
and every minute you fight a culture war is a minute you're not spending fixing hospitals or whatever.
It's worse than that, the more time you spend stoking a culture war the deeper it becomes and the more resources it takes to get out of it
I was hoping Starmer was going to be a grown up, boring, long term politician who would do the unpopular things needed to get us back to where we need to be. At best he's coming across as amateur, at worst he seems to be aping the school yard politics of the right. I'm still hoping the behind scenes work is being done but won't know that for years by which time it's too late. What other options do we have? The whole of the right is dominated by complete self serving loons, the left, Corbyn, Polanski? Fringe politicians at best and even if their policies were workable and deliverable (I don't believe either of those are true) they will never get enough support to be elected.
Hopefully McSweeney Mc****face will get his marching orders this week as he was the primary instrumental driver of reintroducing Mandleson into the party and perhaps that’ll signify a positive change in direction, otherwise Starmer will be out very soon after the piss poor showing they’ll no doubt receive in elections next year
long term politician who would do the unpopular things needed to get us back to where we need to be
He has done unpopular things. Trouble is being unpopular is not an automatic route to fixing things. Neither is being boring.
In fact he's entwined unpopular things with awful outcomes.
With a totally ridiculous Chancellor - there is no chance of anything ever getting any better. Neither of them (and many others) appear to have a grasp on the economy and how to fix it, nor the direction that is needed.
We actually need radical improvement and we need asap.
Writing's on the wall for Starmer now.
Burnham on manoeuvres apparently, with a rumoured policy manifesto of wealth taxes, nationalised utilities and an end to the two-child benefit cap. If true that surprises me, but is very welcome. Wonder if he'll be tempted to revert back to his failed anti-immigration position he had during the last leadership election?
He's going to have to go big on a leadership challenge as he has to be an MP first, and Starmer's acolytes are not going to let him waltz back into parliament without a fight. He's not going to get away with standing for parliament whilst claiming he has no leadership ambitions.
Burnham on manoeuvres apparently
He had an open goal last time and still managed to miss. Maybe he has learnt from the experience.
Maybe he has learnt from the experience.
Lets hope so. He's probably Labour's last chance to stop Reform.
Neither of them (and many others) appear to have a grasp on the economy and how to fix it,
I don't normally respond to your posts about the economy @rone, it's drum you beat with such metronomic repetitiveness that I normally skip past them with barely a nod. But here you are still banging on about Fiscal rules. 1, Reeves does this because it's a manifesto pledge, here's a page of how unpopular the Govt is and you (and others) want them to now change course on this as well. 2. Despite what the Chancellor says [for effect] our fiscal rules are already loose enough to be coming apart at the seams, we're (as a country) already near the limits of our borrowing - our rates are 2% more than Germany and other comparable countries, and higher already than Italy and Greece (for goodness sake) we have a massive debt that's not coming down. They constrain the government's ability to manoeuvre because even now this country is not facing the challenges that it needs to. The welfare bill is massive, and its unaffordable. That (most) benefits are already staggeringly ungenerous isn't a reason not to address the fact that Incapacity and Disability benefits rates have risen and are still rising faster than we can manage them and our economy can cope with. And yet any attempts to reform Govt spending is met with Labours own MPs becoming frothy at the mouth. They insist on policies straight out of the six-form like wealth taxes, or the other day some rent a mouth on Today insisting on a "penny or two on petrol" and the Tories call for exactly the opposite (like 2022 never happened). It's difficult not to conclude that our politicians are still mostly as unserious as they seem to have been from the last decade and Brexit
In these circumstances it’s not so hard to see why the markets (yes, those again) wobble at the slightest indication that the chancellor, and her fiscal rules, might be under threat. It does look as though she and the Treasury are the last bulwark against chaos.
Reeves will undoubtedly need to raise taxes in the Autumn, The only thing she needs is a narrative explaining in simple terms why it needs doing - perhaps it'll be enough to knock some sense into Labour's own unserious (and beyond) MPs
How is putting any taxes up going to increase growth? Reeves has created her own problems with reliance on growth (yet doing absolutely nothing to increase the chances of it, other than maybe crossing her fingers) and then sticking to ridiculous fiscal rules of her own making which are making it harder for her to do anything to increase growth even if she had any ideas to do so.
So basically another 4 years of hoping that growth will magically happen and then losing the next election while only achieving some stuff that the tories would have probably also done had they won the election. Such a frustrating wasted opportunity after 14 years made even worse that they are likely to lose to Reform as whatever they do they are not as good at stoking up racists and easily led people as Reform are.
In July this government decided against Zonal Pricing for electrical energy, a scheme used in other OECD countries that could save £5bn in bills per year, in favour of Reformed National Pricing which is a scheme that doesn't exist beyond those three words https://www.energy-uk.org.uk/publications/energy-uk-explains-the-review-of-electricity-market-arrangements/
What did they spend four years in opposition doing? It's no wonder that they're struggling to contain household expenditure and retain voters
Fourteen months and they've done nothing to reduce energy bills, although they have managed to hammer pensioners with their botched Winter Fuel Payment
Peter Kyle SoS for business/trade said of yesterday's 'march.'
"It doesn’t disturb me, because it’s actually proof that we live in a country where free speech, free association, is alive and well."
Sky News to Trevor Phillips.
It's proof of lots of other things too.
Lol if this is the official statement from the UK Government on yesterday's mess.
Fourteen months and they've done nothing to reduce energy bills, although they have managed to hammer pensioners with their botched Winter Fuel Payment
This.
You know what - doing something like that might be a good thing, and popular rather than the tough choices that they love battering people with.
They did promise to reduce people's bills too.
Subservience to markets is a huge mistake. Markets do not 'know' best and tend to organise capital towards people with capital.
Lol if this is the official statement from the UK Government on yesterday's mess.
What do you predict will be the significance of yesterday's march will be in 3 months? In 3 years?
What do you predict will be the significance of yesterday's march will be in 3 months? In 3 years?
Hard to attribute anything to this one event, but it's a further step in the normalisation of racist thuggery that continues apace under our Labour overlords.
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1967589687578730614
Phase 2 is turning into an absolute belter.
How hard is it for an aide to NOT do these things?
That said VAT removed from fuel bills is being 'considered.' No brainer at the absolute least. Dropping standing charges would be great too. All tinkering - but we have to start somewhere.
So there is clearly a leak somewhere in Government - so Starmer's days are numbered.
Will he or Amorin be gone first?
although they have managed to hammer pensioners with their botched Winter Fuel Payment
Reeves should've stuck to her guns. Winter Fuel Allowance was introduced by Brown decades ago as a way of topping up pensioners income before the introduction of the triple-lock secured their annual increases. It's never been adjusted since. It's not inflation matched, it doesn't have to be spent on fuel, and it's not means tested. It's literally a bung. Meanwhile the 2 child-cap hits low income families more. I know which group I'd spend the money on.
So there is clearly a leak somewhere in Government - so Starmer's days are numbered.
Will he or Amorin be gone first?
Leaked just in time for Trumps arrival
Apparently it’s old news that was selectively unreported on
https://twitter.com/mish_rahman/status/1967596721246204366
So there is clearly a leak somewhere in Government - so Starmer's days are numbered.
lol! The people who sent the messages to the media could be anyone who was on the WhatsApp group 8 years ago or anyone who heard about it since then - not necessarily in the government.
And the idea that a leak dooms a PM - has there ever been a PM who didn't have leaks? Thatcher had leaks in 1980. When did she leave office again?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/30/national-archives-1980-margaret-thatcher
Reeves should've stuck to her guns. Winter Fuel Allowance was introduced by Brown decades ago as a way of topping up pensioners income before the introduction of the triple-lock secured their annual increases. It's never been adjusted since. It's not inflation matched, it doesn't have to be spent on fuel, and it's not means tested. It's literally a bung. Meanwhile the 2 child-cap hits low income families more. I know which group I'd spend the money on.
It's was utterly pointless socially and economically.
In terms of the scale of fixing the country it did more harm than good.
The optics were terrible and economically makes no sense to withdraw money that people will spend into an economy when you want it to grow!
It was expected to save 1.5bn in classical macro terms (governments can't save and don't have the capacity to save.) Literally just over 1% if you go along with the household bullshit.
It should have never been a priority and was an extremely mean spirited thing to come into government with, besides we have a tax system if we need to remove money from a particular group of people.
It also set the stall out for Labour not planning an economy very well at all which is why we are here with an utter mess of an economic system.
Note to Labour: if you want to grow an economy you can't do it by removing money from government spending.
We could argue all day about where that spending should go but - I would not as a progressive government have started with this nonsense.
Meanwhile the 2 child-cap hits low income familiesmore. I know which group I'd spend the money on.
Agree here but it's really not either or.
Note to Labour: if you want to grow an economy you can't do it by removing money from government spending.
Government spending has increased. It would still have increased if they'd stuck to their guns about making the WFA available only to those that really need it. The increased spending elsewhere could have been a bit bigger if they'd kept the change. In other news...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62lnzdndkeo
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1968776998412493247?t=3ubLikR-ekA6aQ8oG2GfiA&s=19
Wow.
That's some grim numbers.
It is certainly pretty grim for Labour and Tories when Green are only 4% behind them. Maybe Labour just need to join with Tories and LibDems to get 45%, after all they are pretty much all the same now anyway.
I really don't think many people would be able to tell the difference whether Tory, LibDem or current Labour Party were in power.
Government spending has increased. It would still have increased if they'd stuck to their guns about making the WFA available only to those that really need it. The increased spending elsewhere could have been a bit bigger if they'd kept the change. In other news...
I think the comments I just made in the Trump thread also apply here
I keep seeing "hypernormalization" mentioned over the past week or so, but I think the point is missed that it is the current extreme financial inequality we live in that has been normalised, an extreme financial system of inflated assets and rapidly diminishing standards of living for the majority, an acceptance of selling the policies that caused the problems as the solutions to the problems and taking them even further and calling that the new normal, taking 14 years of austerity and now making that as the baseline and pretending that a tiny little bit less* austerity is now a great victory.
*although given rather optimistic inflation predictions and where they actually seem to be going that will probably turn out to be more rather than less austerity by the end of this parliament
And a 4.7 percent increase next year in the state pension doesn't seem that much of a problem for me looking at where the current inflation figures are heading, unless you blame people who depend on it for not being rich enough to have made additional provisions available to those with grater wealth. The state pension is hardly a life of wealth and riches, it is once again the normalization of blaming those receive state benefits as the cause of the economic problems that are quite frankly ****ing obviously being driven by the greed of the wealthy.
We are so ****ed.
The best we can hope for at this point is a rainbow coalition with just enough seats to beat Reform.
Best I can hope for is UDI for Scotland after a faragist win 🤣
Government spending has increased. It would still have increased if they'd stuck to their guns about making the WFA available only to those that really need it. The increased spending elsewhere could have been a bit bigger if they'd kept the change. In other news...
It's needs to increase massively, that's why there's no growth. You've got to remember we're on 15+ years of lack of solid renewal - that's not going to be caught up by trimming WFA. It's the economics of people so caught in up in the falsehood of household analogies, and time and time again they're proven to be incorrect. Looking for growth? Not happening. Keep cutting and deleting money out of circulation - shrink the economy.
When the States got their big bumper growth under Biden - it's no secret that the inflation reduction bill was a massive spend that propelled it.
We can debate all day about why the WFA proposals was or wasn't a good move but the reality is stuff like will not fix the economy and should never have been a priority. It's shouldn't even be in the top 50.
It's totally ridiculous to believe anything else.
The only way out of our current dire situation is to enlarge the deficit, get the BoE to trim interest rates and go on a programme of nationalisation for a start. And put the bloody markets in their place by instructing the BoE to buy up bonds during this process. Primary dealers will be forced to take the price due to lack of supply.
You know how boom and bust cycles work - eventually the state will have to spend big like it does whe collapse occurs. Why not now? Labour need to change livelihoods to survive. It's the only game in town or all of us on this forum are looking at a pretty rubbish couple of decades.
Government spending has increased. It would still have increased if they'd stuck to their guns about making the WFA available only to those that really need it. The increased spending elsewhere could have been a bit bigger if they'd kept the change. In other news...
It's needs to increase massively, that's why there's no growth. You've got to remember we're on 15+ years of lack of solid renewal - that's not going to be caught up by trimming WFA. It's the economics of people so caught in up in the falsehood of household analogies, and time and time again they're proven to be incorrect. Looking for growth? Not happening. Keep cutting and deleting money out of circulation - shrink the economy.
When the States got their big bumper growth under Biden - it's no secret that the inflation reduction bill was a massive spend that propelled it.
(There's been about a 20bn deficit enlargement between end of the Tories and Labours new year. Yeah good. But the private sector can't grow on this because of current the state everything's been left in. Starmer getting excited about the US 150bn for 7000 jobs is exactly the reason the government needs to invest its own sterling - and would for 150bn certainly employ many more people. And not have to extract the wealth back to the US. Labour are just utterly obsessed with relying on private foreign money and it's largely a sham for the country.)
We can debate all day about why the WFA proposals was or wasn't a good move but the reality is stuff like will not fix the economy and should never have been a priority. It's shouldn't even be in the top 50.
It's totally ridiculous to believe anything else.
The only way out of our current dire situation is to enlarge the deficit, get the BoE to trim interest rates and go on a programme of nationalisation for a start. And put the bloody markets in their place by instructing the BoE to buy up bonds during this process. Primary dealers will be forced to take the price due to lack of supply.
You know how boom and bust cycles work - eventually the state will have to spend big like it does whe collapse occurs. Why not now? Labour need to change livelihoods to survive. It's the only game in town or all of us on this forum are looking at a pretty rubbish couple of decades.
I agree it needs to “increase massively”, but let’s not paint a picture that isn’t true… the government continues to spend more, and that spending is more than it recovers through taxation etc. This government is trying to play the game of being seen to be in control of “day-to-day” spending while increasing “investment” spending for long term benefit.
I agree it needs to “increase massively”, but let’s not paint a picture that isn’t true… the government continues to spend more, and that spending is more than it recovers through taxation etc. This government is trying to play the game of being seen to be in control of “day-to-day” spending while increasing “investment” spending for long term benefit.
Well all know there is no real difference between day to day and investment spending. It's exactly the same money. It's an unnecessary construct. It's like dividing your own single current account and pretending you have two pots of money when ultimate you have the total amount. It makes no difference to the maths. Besides the government performs trickery here by moving funds from one pot to the other to allow the day 2 day pot access to the investment. All government spending is investment as it makes its way through to the economy and turns the cogs.
The government id spending more but the base is so low. The fiscal rules so restraining etc.
If you want a disaster government in 2029 then let's pretend there is no urgency to hit this stuff as hard as possible now with that big majority.
Desperate times Kelvin.
I agree it needs to “increase massively”, but let’s not paint a picture that isn’t true… the government continues to spend more, and that spending is more than it recovers through taxation etc. This government is trying to play the game of being seen to be in control of “day-to-day” spending while increasing “investment” spending for long term benefit.
Well all know there is no real difference between day to day and investment spending. It's exactly the same money. It's an unnecessary construct. It's like dividing your own single current account and pretending you have two pots of money when ultimate you have the total amount. It makes no difference to the maths. Besides the government performs trickery here by moving funds from one pot to the other to allow the day 2 day pot access to the investment. All government spending is investment as it makes its way through to the economy and turns the cogs.
The government is spending more but the base is so low. The fiscal rules so restraining etc. Wherever there is stuff to fix it needs to do it.
If you want a disaster government in 2029 then let's pretend there is no urgency to hit this stuff as hard as possible now with that big majority.
Desperate times Kelvin.
Desperate times Kelvin.
This is what I don't get. A year or two ago everyone on here agreed that getting the tories out was the one and only priority. People like myself gritted our teeth and voted Labour despite every instinct screaming that we knew what was going to happen, but we did it anyway. Now I think we can probably all agree that the only priority is to stop a Reform election victory, but Labour apologists flatly refuse to accept what needs to be done and think more tinkering around the edges of a neoliberal economy that fuels the far right is all that is required. This is an emergency, and it needs emergency action.
Labour apologists flatly refuse to accept what needs to be done
Please be specific? Do you mean me? I think we should shift taxation towards those with wealth (and I include property in that). I think it's time to accept we need to look after "the young" in the same way as we look after those that are retired. I think the government should be investing far more (directly) in infrastructure and education. That doesn't mean that I think the government doesn't have to look at and change where and how it spends money while increasing spending overall.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1968776998412493247?t=3ubLikR-ekA6aQ8oG2GfiA&s=19
Wow.
That's some grim numbers.
Bare in mind find out now polls are a consistent outlier in giving reform a higher vote share, due to some assumptions they make about the underlying data which other polling companies don't agree with.
Come election time surely the Tories will have a new leader who will regain some of those votes. Support for reform will naturally fall when their policies, if they even have any, come under mainstream scrutiny in the run up to the election. Starmer should be running rings around Farage in televised debates etc.
Looks like there's enough votes currently split between labour, libdems and greens for a left wing coalition or for a labour win if Starmer can unite them. There's a long way to go and I think it's going to be a lot closer than the polls are now suggesting.
Bare in mind
Do bear in mind this is a family friendly forum with such titivating suggestions.
I actually researched that distinction in the past and came away with the impression that either was fine. Now I see that I was wrong. Teaches me for only putting the bear minimum amount of effort into my writing!
Looks like there's enough votes currently split between labour, libdems and greens for a left wing coalition or for a labour win if Starmer can unite them.
Not sure how that works - Labour are no longer left wing and lib dems never were.
Looks like there's enough votes currently split between labour, libdems and greens for a left wing coalition or for a labour win if Starmer can unite them.
Not sure how that works - Labour are no longer left wing and lib dems never were.
Label it however you want. The end result is the same which is keeping Tories/Reform out of power.
Why bother keeping Tories out of power when Labour and Lib Dems are pretty much the same thing? And why the hell would the Greens join them. Not wanting Reform in government is one thing but fantasies about parties joining together to combat Reform is another.
I don't think they're the same thing at all. The greens would surely be interested in a coalition, it's the only way they're ever going to get a sniff of power, and who else are they going to coalesce with? I can't see a Reform/Green or Tory/Green coalition.
I don't think they're the same thing at all. The greens would surely be interested in a coalition, it's the only way they're ever going to get a sniff of power, and who else are they going to coalesce with? I can't see a Reform/Green or Tory/Green coalition.
I would hope the Green party have learned the lessons UKIP and, on the opposite end of the spectrum of effectiveness, the LibDems have taught us.
That lesson is if you want to really change the country then stay out of power, steal votes from the main parties, and never take yes for an answer.
Why bother keeping Tories out of power when Labour and Lib Dems are pretty much the same thing?
Because despite the narrative on here they are not. Starmer is undoubtedly making a cock up of the communications and making some odd decisions which we we'd all rather he learned from quickly but he's not embraced the populist, racist, insular bigoted agenda the Tories have. Labour might have moved to the right (and not a bad thing in my mind) but the Tories have really lurched right.
I accept he's embraced the small boats / migration issue a little bit too uncritically for my liking but he can't just ignore that sentiment in the country. He gets hammered for following 'populist' polices regarding immigration and yet at the same time gets hammered for not being popular.
It shall be interesting to see how France fares in the next couple of years, they are ay further around the U-bend of denial we are and fiscal reality will catch up with them before us. If it doesn't then I'm prepared to accept the head in the sand, spend , spend, spend approach might actually work. I don't think it will though, France's interest on it's debt is already taking massive amounts out of the economy and were following suit.
Ignoring all the right wing populist nonsense and immigration sideshow rubbish there's two basic schools of thought, the centrist view that we have to balance the number of people who are economically active with the support provided to those who are not and the left wing view that's it's all down to the wealthy hoarding the wealth and we could find more money if we just wanted to.
In reality it will be an element of both, but probably more down to the imbalance between contributors and recipients. Our welfare state and specifically pensions has been ponzi scheme for years, hence the need for economically active migrants to physically do the work no one else wants to and be net contributors to society. The more you provide the more demand is created (expectation might be a better word).
Please be specific? Do you mean me?
No not you specifically, just a general comment that defenders of Starmer and the govt don't seem to understand the scale of what is required to defeat Farage. Delivering the policies which were in the manifesto will not be enough. The rise of Reform and other stuff like far right marches with 100s of thousands openly displaying their ire indicates a level of anger with the status quo among the electorate which will not be assuaged by some nice statistics about A&E waiting times reducing by x%. People want the change they were promised, and so far Labour have delivered more of the same.
You'd think someone would notice the link to the polls and Labour's generally awful performance.
I know it's not just about pleasing people - tough choices FFS. But people have had enough of the tough choices being lumped on them rather than on the people that should take the hit. The people that get the tough choices never see the benefits either.
Labour aren't really for working people - they're for the finance and business class 'cos there oh so desperate for extractive investment 🤪.
far right marches with 100s of thousands openly displaying their ire indicates a level of anger with the status quo among the electorate
A small fraction of the number who went on anti-Brexit protests which I'm guessing you probably derided at the time.
he's not embraced the populist, racist, insular bigoted agenda the Tories have.
Could you explain what he meant by an "Island of strangers" and immigrants causing "incalculable damage"?
A small fraction of the number who went on anti-Brexit protests
Aye but lets be honest, strolling through London waving an EU flag alongside your fellow chattering classes from the suburbs is a world away from going to London dressed in and eng-er-lan flag and identifying yourself with the likes of Yaxley-Lennon and his fellow coked up football hooligans. Before last weekend Yaxley-Lennon never got more than a few hundred idiots on one of his demos, suddenly there's more than a hundred thousand of them marching through the streets singing 'you can stick your Palestine up your arse'. If that doesn't give you cause for alarm nothing will.
he's not embraced the populist, racist, insular bigoted agenda the Tories have.
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1960335573677170722?t=2o_2Jwt0MHQeEkVxT4hu9A&s=19
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1954931076020719999?t=gYbwF3NE2skBcRbeX5qfFQ&s=19
I would like to know what "freedoms" have been agreed with the US AI investors to get this investment deal. The government have quite openly been proposing to screw over the creative industries with a lack of protection for some time, and I bet that was to show that they will kowtow, if they treat them like that what have they got lined up for the rest of us.
Conservative MPs are still wanging on about their Rwanda scheme, which aims to remove all right to claim asylum in the UK for those caught up it. Reform are promising that no one would be able to claim asylum here, and they'd deport all asylum seekers, full stop. This government is getting people through the (deliberate?) limbo of what was a stuck asylum system... most are successful and can begin to rebuild their lives here, unsuccessful applicants are being deported. More are being deported only because more are being processed. There's also the (too) slow return to pre-Brexit cooperation with France that's being partly put back in place. So that's three parties with three different policy approaches.
Now then, ignoring actual policy and moving on to the messaging... all the propaganda coming from Labour selling getting on with the work as being "tough" deporting those that fail in their application, and all the bragging about a few people being returned to France... well, it's all hateful isn't it?! In no way is it going to defuse the UK political and social misdirected anger towards immigrants... I can't see how it can do anything but make such sentiments (more) mainstream, and normalise them. What comes next? More hatred towards those Brits that weren't born here, or were born here but don't fit some twisted idea of what a Brit should be. Dark times ahead.
there is no real difference between day to day and investment spending. ... All government spending is investment as it makes its way through to the economy and turns the cogs.
It's so weird that someone that talks about economics and high finance so much has such a poor grasp of basic concepts. You really think that spending £1 billion on infrastructure is the same as spending £1 billion on winter fuel allowance benefits because it all "makes its way through the economy and turns the cogs"?
there is no real difference between day to day and investment spending. ... All government spending is investment as it makes its way through to the economy and turns the cogs.
It's so weird that someone that talks about economics and high finance so much has such a poor grasp of basic concepts. You really think that spending £1 billion on infrastructure is the same as spending £1 billion on winter fuel allowance benefits because it all "makes its way through the economy and turns the cogs"?
Don't be disingenuous and read it again.
Of course they're not the same end result but all government spending is investment of some sort. A negative government sector is a positive non-government sector. Operationally there is no difference between day to day spending and investment because it comes from the same place.
I'm always clear to point out some political choices are clearly better than others. Do I believe it would be better to spend more on infrastructure than WFA across the board? Yes absolutely. Do I believe there is a taxation system in place to mitigate inflation and remove money from WFA. Yes absolutely. So there's no need to be messing up the WFA like labour did and kicking up a stink in the first few months for no real terms saving. The fact that most people believe this to be saving is just nonsense and that's how it's been framed by a mendacious illiterate government.
Like I said to some other person it's not either/or.
Please don't talk to me about poor concepts.
On a different note. Argentina and balanced budgets. Earlier this year ...
Milei's Argentina seals budget surplus for first time in 14 years
ByReutersJanuary 17, 20254:59 PM GMTUpdated January 17, 2025
https://twitter.com/mbostic0/status/1970182722296651962?t=_HDsbeLxTyaZaqdmbTwfjA&s=19
I think it's useful to think of investment not just a return in terms of money but in the value to people's lives.
That £300-400 should help a good bunch of people in the face of criminally rising bills get through the winter and survive. Maybe less strain on the NHS? Maybe better health outcomes etc?
The return on the money is for public purpose not what simply is the multiplier effect.
For those who in the 'Centrist's version of reality' don't deserve the money - we can tax them to take the money back out at the other end if needs be.
Also there is something clean and sensible about not means-testing and having hard cut-offs in support money.
This is being driven by a desire to balance the books rather than what good it will do - and it won't balance the books and it would have done more harm than good.
Run a country on a spreadsheet instead of real political choices at your peril.
This can all co-exist with a capital spending programme. It's not either / or like Labour have sold it.
Just a programme of removing things - like the Tory mindset is not good for the economy or society.
It's so weird that someone that talks about economics and high finance so much has such a poor grasp of basic concept
@rone grasp of basic concepts is so vague that I skip right past anything they say about economics. Really, you can stare with incredulity at the posts, and even (if you're bored enough) try to engage, but it makes no difference.
On a different note. Argentina and balanced budgets. Earlier this year ..
Argentina's issues have little to nothing to do with cutting Govt Spending, and mostly due to quasi-intuitional reactions to it's on- going Dollar dependency.
there is no real difference between day to day and investment spending. ... All government spending is investment as it makes its way through to the economy and turns the cogs.
It's so weird that someone that talks about economics and high finance so much has such a poor grasp of basic concepts. You really think that spending £1 billion on infrastructure is the same as spending £1 billion on winter fuel allowance benefits because it all "makes its way through the economy and turns the cogs"?
all government spending is investment of some sort. ... operationally there is no difference between day to day spending and investment because it comes from the same place.
Operationally there is no difference between urine and semen because they come from the same place.
Apart from urine coming from the bladder and semen from the testicles
Researchers at Opinium have found that 54% of the public now want the Labour leader to step down from his post in No.10, compared to just 24% who want him to stay in place – and 21% who don’t know.
That’s even higher than the 45% who wanted his Tory predecessor Rishi Sunak to quit in April 2024.
Blimey, imagine being so unpopular that the majority of the public are united in wanting you to resign, something which even Rishi Sunak couldn't achieve!
But as we always see with leaders, they can't accept that they are the problem and never voluntarily step down after admitting they have ****ed it.
@ronegrasp of basic concepts is so vague that I skip right past anything they say about economics.
And right there is the problem we're all suffering from. There is more than one way to look at economics than the neo-classical model of assuming we're all rational actors competing with eachother in efficient markets with minimal state intervention. If you arrogantly dismiss anyone proposing an alternative approach all you're doing is reinforcing the problems we can all plainly see.