UK Government Thread

I see that Sir Keir Starmer approval rating continues to fall and he is currently easily the least popular leader of what is now the 4 main parties.

https://www.opinium.com/resource-center/opinium-voting-intention-5th-march-2025-2/

I am sure that it is all Magic Granddad's fault although I can't remember why because binners no longer seems to be around to remind us.

Couple of quotes from today's Grauniad:

Keir Starmer has spoken of how he personally “likes and respects” the US president, Donald Trump, and understands what he is trying to achieve.

[...]

Witkoff also praised Vladimir Putin, saying he “liked” the Russian president and did not “regard Putin as a bad guy”.

No 10 had no comment on Witkoff’s remarks. But the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, told the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg that she was “not put off by that”.

So happy we have a Labour government to represent our values.

claiming foreign holidays as a 'basic' is one of the funniest things I've read online in a while

I know the entitled ****s.

Let's all get to blackkers int charabanc people were happy then.

**** me, Ed Davey is sounding more like a leader each day

BBC News - UK must stand up to 'bully' Trump, says Ed Davey
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yx70rzp7ko

Keir Starmer has been warned against “appeasing” Donald Trump as he considers reducing a major tax for US tech companies while cutting disability benefits and public sector jobs.

His chancellor, Rachel Reeves, confirmed on Sunday that there were “ongoing” discussions about the UK’s £1bn-a-year digital services tax that affects companies including Meta and Amazon.

todays Grauniad

In case anyone was still in doubt- it’s not “left vs right”, it’s the super-rich vs the rest of us

In case anyone was still in doubt- it’s not “left vs right”, it’s the super-rich vs the rest of us

Yeah, but...

Potholes.

I'm puzzled that a party that doesn't need to worry about elections for another 4 years is feeling the need to start appeasing Reform now.

Going to be carnage with the EU, especially Ireland, if the UK does give USA companies a carve out for DST. They’ve already pretty much wrecked OECD (pillar 1) plans to enable taxes on them for smaller markets… the rules needed to stop them escaping their tax responsibilities. If it becomes the tech giants vs EU & Canada, with everyone else cowering, they’re going to get away with even more piss taking.

The change that’s really needed in the UK is regulation of charges for third party sellers by the big American giants. Amazon and the like just pass DST onto sellers who are using their oligopoly digital market places. Services that smaller companies are now even more reliant on post Brexit to sell into the rest of Europe.

In case anyone was still in doubt- it’s not “left vs right”, it’s the super-rich vs the rest of us

Yep, and the super rich are winning, and the political establishment are on their side, and have supporters who just blindly accept that the current status quo and ever rightward drift is the sensible choice, and dismiss any alternative as fantasy.

I'm puzzled that a party that doesn't need to worry about elections for another 4 years is feeling the need to start appeasing Reform now.

The problem here is that they do need to worry about some elections now and the cancer that is Reform UK is widespread even if that did not translate into seats at the last GE. A Reform win in Runcorn will be a disaster for this country. The direction of travel will become more obvious and more people will be emboldened to stop feeling shame at their prejudices and start celebrating them instead. The very fact that it looks likely means Labour are on high alert trying to out-nasty Reform.

I see also, in other unsavoury scumbag news - that horrible ****er Cummings is cosying up with Farage. If anyone knows how to deliver a far right victory and make far right policies seem normal, it is him.

Posted by: Oakwood

↑

The direction of travel will become more obvious and more people will be emboldened to stop feeling shame at their prejudices and start celebrating them instead. The very fact that it looks likely means Labour are on high alert trying to out-nasty Reform.

The problem is Labour trying to out-nasty them makes the first sentence even more likely. You cant beat bigots by becoming them. That is what emboldens them and allows them to unmask fully.

Posted by: Oakwood

↑

If anyone knows how to deliver a far right victory and make far right policies seem normal, it is him.

I am not sure. In many ways he reminds me of Cameron. Who was crowned as the all conquering PR expert winning two referendums by his own abilities and then crashed and burned when he went for a hattrick but found a cause which the right wing press didnt support.

Cummings similarly crashed and burned when he started a political fight where he didnt have real support from the right wing press and paymasters.

A Reform win in Runcorn will be a disaster for this country. The direction of travel will become more obvious ....

Not necessarily, it depends on whether it is seen as a wake-up call and what the reaction to that wake-up call is.

The direction of travel is very important and I think is fair to say that Reform now have an established base similar to Labour and the Tories. But I don't think Runcorn will be proof of that.

Whatever the Runcorn by-election result the primary driver will be voters opinions of the current Labour government, not necessarily their opinion of Reform. By-elections provide a fairly unique opportunity for voters to express their views freely without having to worry about the consequences of doing so. An extra Reform MP will not change the political landscape.

A reasonable result for Labour will strengthen Rachel Reeves position whilst a disastrous result will increase the pressure on her to be sacked. And prime ministers often resign not long after they are forced to sack their Chancellors.

A Reform win in Runcorn will be a disaster for this country.

I think it's probably necessary. Labour can't roll back its lurch to the right until Reeves is gone. A humiliating defeat in Runcorn will accelerate that. 

Further gains for Reform will mean any more tax rises are off the cards. I suspect that, with the exception of the NHS, you can kiss goodbye to further spending increases as well. A vote for Reform isn't exactly backing state support for those in need and redistribution of wealth. It could well mean Reeves is moved on, but not to be replaced with a chancellor prepared to ignore Reform voters more. Far from it.

Yes I guess Starmer could ignore what growing support for Reform is actually really about, he has after all been doing precisely that up until now.

Accepting that the existing status quo is no longer acceptable to many voters who want fundamental change would mean taking on a very challenging task which wouldn't be backed up by the right-wing press and establishment.

Starmer was satisfied with 5 years as Director of Public Prosecutions, I am sure that he would be perfectly satisfied with the Prime Minister chapter of his personal career lasting also 5 years.

I doubt that Starmer is personally very bothered about the long-term consequences of premiership. Well probably no more bothered than the consequences of his economic attacks on the disabled.

After all who thinks that Starmer is a conviction politician?

When will you get it Ernie... people voting for Reform... people who voted for Brexit (the fervent ones, not those swayed at the last minute by lies)... sure they want "Change", but they are not asking for the same change as you, quite the opposite.

Yes I guess Starmer could ignore what growing support for Reform is actually really about, he has after all been doing precisely that up until now.

Well he's backtracked on enough fiscal socialism now, so he could introduce more racism and xenophobia...

If nothing is sacred, and all that.

It does leave me without a political home, though.

Posted by: kelvin

↑

When will you get it Ernie... people voting for Reform... people who voted for Brexit (the fervent ones, not those swayed at the last minute by lies)... sure they want "Change", but they are not asking for the same change as you, quite the opposite.

The "they just want change" narrative is no excuse for the type of change many of them want.

Posted by: Steve

↑

The "they just want change" narrative is no excuse for the type of change many of them want.

"Many"? Everything I read (John Harris in particular is good on it) shows that what "they" want is highly variable. Sure there is the hardcore of racists but many, for good reason, do feel ignored and hence are voting for a change. 

Admittedly its hard to see why voting for the professional politican Farage and his band of tory rebrandees counts as a change but they are exploiting the gap in the market.

The problem is Starmer and co are also joining in the simplistic branding and hence policies to "appeal" on rather than actually addressing the issue. Overly simplistic populist policies in a nutshell.

Posted by: kelvin

↑

When will you get it Ernie... people voting for Reform... people who voted for Brexit (the fervent ones, not those swayed at the last minute by lies)... sure they want "Change", but they are not asking for the same change as you, quite the opposite.

And when will you get it that the only significant change which had occurred in the last 9 months is that we now have a "Labour" government?

If there was a general election tomorrow all the indications are that Reform would receive approximately as many, if not more, votes than Labour. The reason for that isn't because of a referendum 10 years ago but because of a general election 9 months ago.

Otherwise the level of support for Reform would have been the same last July as it is now.

Blame Brexit as much as you want for Labour's woes and lack of popularity but the problem is the Starmer and Reeves not Brexit. 

Although I do appreciate that for some people Starmer is above any sort of criticism, for them must responsibility must lie elsewhere. Generally we seem to have moved away from blaming Brexit although apparently Jeremy Corbyn is still somehow responsible. And astonishingly according to binners also the Tories, it turns out that their shite opposition to the current Labour government might be the reason for Starmer's poor decisions.

Blame Brexit as much as you want for Labour's woes

I wasn’t.

I was expressing my fear that the way the Labour government will change in the face of Reform winning another seat and storming ahead in the polls will be to give Reform voters more of what they want. Which isn’t at all the kind of change you say you want. Or the changes I want. Listening to Reform voters too much is a big part of the current problem for the UK. More support for Reform will result in politicians doing more of that. So Reeves might go, but so would any chance of more taxes on the rich and more spending on the services those in need require.

Posted by: drj

↑

Keir Starmer has been warned against “appeasing” Donald Trump as he considers reducing a major tax for US tech companies while cutting disability benefits and public sector jobs.

His chancellor, Rachel Reeves, confirmed on Sunday that there were “ongoing” discussions about the UK’s £1bn-a-year digital services tax that affects companies including Meta and Amazon.

todays Grauniad

In case anyone was still in doubt- it’s not “left vs right”, it’s the super-rich vs the rest of us

They really are a complete shower of utter ****s, especially that ****ing reboot reeve with her preprogrammed responses to every question asked of her. 

I was expressing my fear that the way the Labour government will change in the face of Reform winning another seat and storming ahead in the polls will be to give Reform voters more of what they want.

Yes there's a risk labour will swing further to the right on issues like immigration and DEI issues, but it'll be a price worth paying to get rid of Reeves. Nothing will improve while Labour have a tory ex-banker as Chancellor. 

Yes there's a risk labour will swing further to the right on issues like immigration and DEI issues,

Because that worked so well for Rishi Sunak when he was  prime minister and he also faced with a growing threat from Reform?

Because that tactic has worked so well for established political parties right across Europe who have been faced with a far-right threat?

The worse possible response to a far-right threat is to embrace their agenda. The only reason that right-wing and centrist parties do precisely that is because the alternative is totally unpalatable to them..... they themselves subscribe to neoliberal economics with a unhealthy dollop of racism

Posted by: ernielynch

↑

Yes there's a risk labour will swing further to the right on issues like immigration and DEI issues,

Because that worked so well for Rishi Sunak when he was  prime minister and he also faced with a growing threat from Reform?

Because that tactic has worked so well for established political parties right across Europe who have been faced with a far-right threat?

The worse possible response to a far-right threat is to embrace their agenda. The only reason that right-wing and centrist parties do precisely that is because the alternative is totally unpalatable to them..... they themselves subscribe to neoliberal economics with a unhealthy dollop of racism

 

So you think 'centrists' are racist?...wow.. that's a sweeping assumption, even from you!

Well certainly some centrists on STW defended the cuts to the foreign aid budget by employing the racist tropes more expected from Farage. So it isn't that that hard a statement to make, but I wouldn't really call them centrists any more even though that's what they might like to believe they are.

So you think 'centrists' are racist?...wow.. that's a sweeping assumption, even from you!

It is neither an assumption nor sweeping, it is a very specific fact. One which has been extensively researched by Martin Forde KC

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/17/labour-accused-still-not-engaging-hierarchy-racism-claims

Martin Forde KC, who was commissioned by Keir Starmer to investigate allegations of bullying, racism and sexism, expressed concern about the party enabling a “hierarchy” of racism.

And since you are back on this thread after your week-long absence mattyfez any opinions concerning the centrists announcement that they will financially cripple over a million disabled people?

Last Monday you expressed your outrage at what iirc you described as "tedious" speculation, now that it is no longer speculation any thoughts you want to share? You are usually keen to share.

Posted by: kelvin

↑

Listening to Reform voters too much is a big part of the current problem for the UK.

No it isnt or rather its listening to them only superficially.

There is some interesting research about how the "nativists" have pivoted away from the traditional "they take your jobs " argument to making claims about housing prices/welfare costs instead. 

Those are obvious problems which the right wing rags and populist right have been able to utilise to blame, in particular, immigration for.  

Starmer should be addressing those welfare and housing costs and explaining where the actual failures came from and how he is going to fix them. Not to play along with the hard right agenda since they will always be able to outright him (ok possibly not in his case).

Because that worked so well for Rishi Sunak when he was  prime minister and he also faced with a growing threat from Reform?

I never said it would work, just that's what they will probably do. Labour going to the right on social issues is inevitable in any case, they're following what is happening in every other western democracy. What they need to do first is move to the left on economic issues and start spending some money and making the lives of working people easier. And to do that they need to get rid of their austerity obsessed tory chancellor. 

Posted by: ernielynch

↑

So you think 'centrists' are racist?...wow.. that's a sweeping assumption, even from you!

 

It is neither an assumption nor sweeping, it is a very specific fact. One which has been extensively researched by Martin Forde KC

 

 

 

 

 

 

And since you are back on this thread after your week-long absence mattyfez any opinions concerning the centrists announcement that they will financially cripple over a million disabled people?

Last Monday you expressed your outrage at what iirc you described as "tedious" speculation, now that it is no longer speculation any thoughts you want to share? You are usually keen to share.

 I strongly dissaprove of the benefits cuts. Does that mean I'm not a racist centrist (as you put it) any more?

Thats the most annoying thing - when people add the number 2 & an Orange fruit together, and come to the conclusion that the answer must be a Ford Focus. 🙃 

'a tory ex-banker as Chancellor' or more accurately 'a tory ex-clerical assistant in the complaints department as Chancellor'

View this post on Instagram

Erni.

Brexit is tbe major issue.

It has caused huge economic losses

It has crippled  NHS recruitment 

It has legitimized racism.

Brexit is an ongoing process that is far from complete hence the adverse effects are still increasing

Last Monday you expressed your outrage at what iirc you described as "tedious" speculation,

I believe he described the accurate commentary here as "drivel". 

Does that mean I'm not a racist centrist (as you put it) any more?

I am not sure if what you are is relevant to this thread.mattyfez, which as the title suggests is about the UK government. 

A government which is widely described as centrist and which also has a proven racist problem.

I have no idea why you appear to assume that any criticism I make of Starmer and his government is an attack on you btw. 

You have repeatedly claimed to be a LibDem supporter which makes it particularly weird imo.

Posted by: ernielynch

↑

Does that mean I'm not a racist centrist (as you put it) any more?

I am not sure if what you are is relevant to this thread.mattyfez, which as the title suggests is about the UK government. 

A government which is widely described as centrist and which also has a proven racist problem.

I have no idea why you appear to assume that any criticism I make of Starmer and his government is an attack on you btw. 

You have repeatedly claimed to be a LibDem supporter which makes it particularly weird imo.

It should be pretty obvious, I voted labour to hedge my bets as the lib-dems are pretty much non-existent in my area.

the centrists announcement that they will financially cripple over a million disabled people?

These are your words. I am a centrist, so I do take that as an attack, yes.

since you are back on this thread after your week-long absence

I didn't realise I have to keep crap-posting on this thread on a daily basis in order to qualify to voice my opinion?

Some on here, you included, are worse than MAGA sometimes, with your blind, extreme tribalism… you'll be accusing me of eating babies next.

Posted by: ernielynch

↑

the centrists announcement that they will financially cripple over a million disabled people?

These are your words. I am a centrist, so I do take that as an attack, yes.

Yes those are my words and I am very clearly referring to the Starmer's government, what are you, the UK government's spokesman on this thread?

Some on here, you included, are worse than MAGA sometimes, with your blind, extreme tribalism… you'll be accusing me of eating babies next.

Jeezus this thread isn't about you. And yes some people will express dissatisfaction with regards to the current government, not everyone will be of the opinion that it's doing a great job, get a grip ffs 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/24/the-guardian-view-on-rachel-reevess-spending-cuts-a-choice-not-an-economic-necessity

The idea that painful cuts are inevitable is political theatre. Either Rachel Reeves knows the constraints are self-imposed – or, more troublingly, believes they are real. 

The chancellor won’t raise taxes on the wealthy, relax her fiscal rules or borrow more. So she claims that there is no alternative to cuts. But these are self-imposed constraints – combined with deference to an unelected monetary authority – that sustain the illusion of necessity. 

Austerity isn’t the price of prudence but the cost of forgetting. The chancellor wears the mask of tough decisions, but on a stage built on myths. 

Austerity isn’t the price of prudence but the cost of forgetting. The chancellor wears the mask of tough decisions, but on a stage built on myths. 

She came up with something ridiculous from the start - based on a misunderstanding of governmental finances. 

She is too stubborn and too stupid to go anywhere else with it.

I don't know what it will take for them to realise they have ****ed up big time, as one thing is for certain things are going to get worse from here on in.

If Centrism's aims are to make things materially worse and pave the way for more extreme government's it's looking like a total success.

Unbelievable anyone can still not see this. All because some utterly stupid person didn't sit down with the Chancellor and realise the way the Conservatives understand the economy is not a template for Labour success.

are worse than MAGA sometimes

You mean stuff like the slash and burn of the state to hand it over to the tech bros, the pretence of a plan, blaming the poorest and most needy for the failures and taking away what little they have, using racist tropes to attack immigrants and remove their rights, pandering to the oligarchs, I agree Starmer could shoot someone on oxford street in broad daylight on camera and the MAGA loons who claim to be centrists would still defend him. And of course another trick they have learnt from trump, is to accuse those who stand against that far right political direction of the tactics that they themselves are actually using.

Attacking someone for their viewpoint then shouting "this thread isn't just about you" when they try to defend their position is a bit naughty IMO.

However pissed off you are about where Starmer is taking us. And, as a previously optimistic centrist, I am pissed off about it.

😕

Posted by: Oakwood

↑

Attacking someone for their viewpoint then shouting "this thread isn't just about you" when they try to defend their position is a bit naughty IMO.

 

However pissed off you are about where Starmer is taking us. And, as a previously optimistic centrist, I am pissed off about it.

 

😕

Nicely put - all of it.

The good news/bad news is that Starmer and Reeves godawful performance is driving me further left, which kind of leaves me with no valid vote.

I absolutely agree that Reeves self-imposed fiscal rules are an utter disaster. She and/or they need to go. Urgently. The unprecedented threat to European security resulting from Trumps election is the ideal justification for tearing up the rules and taxing/borrowing to invest and safeguard our future, militarily and economically. 

"We can't change despite an unprecedented historical global realignment because The Rules" is absolutely ****ing insane.

And yes, as a previous "give 'em a chance" centrist you can all laugh at me now.

And yes, as a previous "give 'em a chance" centrist you can all laugh at me now.

I would, but it is not really funny what is going on.  I had low expectations of Starmer but I can't believe how much I misread him over the years if he has always believed in the shit he is doing/saying now.  With so many Labour MPs I always hoped that the majority would be against what he stands for and do something about, he can hardly remove the whip from 200 MPs can he but I guess they have all change too?

With so many Labour MPs I always hoped that the majority would be against what he stands for and do something about, he can hardly remove the whip from 200 MPs can he but I guess they have all change too?

Posted by: Oakwood

↑

Attacking someone for their viewpoint then shouting "this thread isn't just about you" when they try to defend their position is a bit naughty IMO.

Maybe read this page again? That is certainly not what happened. Mattyfez didn't like my criticism of right-wing and centrist parties and decided that it was a personal attack on him (despite the fact that he hadn't posted anything for a week)  He quoted my following comment :

Because that worked so well for Rishi Sunak when he was prime minister and he also faced with a growing threat from Reform

 

Because that tactic has worked so well for established political parties right across Europe who have been faced with a far-right threat?

 

The worse possible response to a far-right threat is to embrace their agenda. The only reason that right-wing and centrist parties do precisely that is because the alternative is totally unpalatable to them..... they themselves subscribe to neoliberal economics with a unhealthy dollop of racism

And then said : So you think 'centrists' are racist?...wow.. that's a sweeping assumption, even from you!

You think that's me attacking him do you? 

And yes I think that many centrists in the current government are quite comfortable with racism, as Martin Forde KC shamefully discovered.

I am sure that relaxed attitude to racism helps to explain how they are happy to introduce Reform-friendly policies such as denying asylum seekers British citizenship and cutting foreign aid by 40%

I am just about 62 years old, with a bit of luck and medical intervention I might shuffle on another 20 years. I think I will witness the following -

A significantly right wing government and all the nasty stuff that will go with that.

A widening in the wealth gap to Victorian levels leading to an impoverished working/middle class.

State pension entitlement into your mid 70s

Some form of dramatic swing back to the left wing of politics as the boomers die off.

If Centrism's aims are to make things materially worse and pave the way for more extreme government's it's looking like a total success.

 

Unbelievable anyone can still not see this. All because some utterly stupid person didn't sit down with the Chancellor and realise the way the Conservatives understand the economy is not a template for Labour success.

I think the aims of individuals concerned might be misunderstood. People like Starmer and Reeves are not really politicians, ie people driven by strong political convictions. These are simply people who have chosen politics as a career option and will adjust their convictions to suit.

Five years ago, when the conditions required it, Starmer was a radical lefty who was publicly making the "moral case for socialism" as he called it. The "aim" was to eventually become prime minister. I have that no doubt Reeves relished the thought of becoming the first female Chancellor of the Exchequer in UK history.

These are individuals who are on a quest to achieve personal fulfillment. Having reached high levels of power their natural instincts are to maintain the status quo and not cause too much upheavals to a system which they fundamentally fully support. 

Sir Keir Starmer will go down in history as a former Director of Public Prosecutions and Prime Minister and Rachel Reeves as Britain's first ever female Chancellor of the Exchequer, what's not to like?

All political careers end in failure anyway so no one will worry about that.

Comment of the week.

Comment of the week.

Comment of the weak, certainly.