MegaSack DRAW - 6pm Christmas Eve - LIVE on our YouTube Channel
I see Starmer has managed to tank support for an ID card.
Every single thing they announce is badly timed or offered up for all the wrong reasons - why can't they see it? Literally everything that do is awful.
Why are they avoiding the things that will make a difference?
Go and speak to someone on the street FFS; take a look at your communities and our town centres.
Have a reality check.
(Also I think they're on a mission to push back on mental health benefits - ****ing disgusting. )
This whole charade to screw vulnerable people for cash whilst having a system in place with which the power of parliament can authorise money for anything the government chooses - is disgraceful.
Generally politicians not just Labour - have hit a boundary of not wanting to make things better but simply restrict and deconstruct society - because of the forces of a failed economic system.
It's head banging stuff. And bad for us all.
What a great idea to give GB News an interview
https://www.gbnews.com/politics/video-keir-starmer-speaks-to-gb-news-labour-conference
It's just a shame that he was so pisspoor.
Apparently the best, and only, example Sir Keir Starmer could provide of the Labour Party's patriotism was that after WW2 a Labour government was a founding member of NATO.
Which must redefine the definition of patriotism - it apparently now includes forming military alliances with foreign countries.
Starmer also twice refers to "our beautiful" country, which is not only cringe inducing but also betrays the fact that he clearly spends too much time in Donald Trump's company.
Starmer also twice refers to "our beautiful" country, which is not only cringe inducing but also betrays the fact that he clearly spends too much time in Donald Trump's company
Talk is so cheap these days.
Our country is beautiful for a privilege few.
He's rubbish why do they let him out? He could redefine patriotism as supporting the vulnerable. But no - let's give them a hard time, scanning their benefits for a couple of quid.
I know no one now who voted for him that likes him. Literally no one.
Also the 'Farage boats' that some Centrists are having podcast levels of excitement at - is not the hit they think it is. Any amplified hate of Farage in this context will empower him and his voters.
You have to dismantle Farage through his economic policy but that's hard for Labour as they're to the right on many elements. (Or even better enact good economic policies NOW - cos you're actually in government - idiots.)
https://bsky.app/profile/iandunt.bsky.social/post/3m26vqet7522f
Above: Liberal extremist having constant faith in Starmer and being let down constantly.
Even getting the photo shot of a Jack on the rudder of a plan!
You could literally swap faces between Farage and Starmer here.
You have to dismantle Farage through his economic policy
Yeah right, Reform voters are known for their interest and understanding of economic policy.
In reality even if he's offering amazing economic policy that will somehow magically lift the living standards of millions without hiking taxes or tanking the economy and could prove it he still wouldn't be believed. Appealing to large parts of the electorate on the basis of reason and policy sailed along time ago.
In reality even if he's offering amazing economic policy that will somehow magically lift the living standards of millions without hiking taxes or tanking the economy and could prove it he still wouldn't be believed.
You do realise that Sir Keir Starmer won the last general election, don't you?
Starmer doesn't have to "offer" voters anything. He just needs to get on with the job that he was elected by a landslide to do.
Yeah right, Reform voters are known for their interest and understanding of economic policy.
You don't need a degree in economics to understand that your rent, food, electricity, prices etc are all going up.
Btw I love how now that Labour are in government centrists have developed such a contemptuous attitude towards voters and what they can allegedly understand.
Previously when Labour were in opposition centrists claimed that Labour had no choice but lurch sharply to the right because that was they claimed voters wanted.
Labour will have to actually do some stuff to improve living standards rather than just talk about policies. People will need evidence of changes and they need to be able to feel it. Not much chance of that which is why Starmer will be losing.
I see Starmer has managed to tank support for an ID card.
See? And you lot said Starmer has achieved nothing to improve the country!
You don't need a degree in economics to understand that your rent, food, electricity, prices etc are all going up.
It helps if you can understand why those things are going up though, and have some view as to what policies might improve it. Otherwise, democracy is reduced to a popularity contest. And that's not good. You know how that's not good right?
It helps if you can understand why those things are going up though, and have some view as to what policies might improve it. Otherwise, democracy is reduced to a popularity contest.
Most voters have a basic understanding of economics, including the 30% who when asked say they would vote Reform.
I strongly disagree with any suggestion that voters need to have an understanding of economics beyond very basic stuff.
What voter definitely need to understand though is which party serves their interests best and who they can trust. At one time that was very clear to many voters, then along came the centrists who muddied the waters with repackaged right-wing policies offering them as some sort of alternative.
Nothing is very clear anymore.
People like Starmer have precisely reduced politics into a popularity contest rather than the ideological struggle which it should be. There is no significant ideological differences any more.
And of course it is popularity contest which charisma-free Starmer is losing big time.
then along came the centrists who muddied the waters with repackaged right-wing policies offering them as some sort of alternative.
I've never been able to reconcile the scorn poured on the Tories *and* the acceptance of the Tory neoliberal project by Centrists - as if it can just be done better rather than laying it out with proper analysis and asking why it is broken rather than just a few tax tweaks. Most people haven't a clue how little tweaking the tax take does bugger all to the balance sheet. We are talking tens of billions - if not hundreds of billions needed to fix decades of decline and prep for the future.
How handy then that Thatcher's model started with the fact the government doesn't have any money of its own. How useful. (Despite the fact all government assets were purchased with government money - not tax take.) Thatcher then started the ball rolling by selling off our assets into creating illusion that the market was somehow the saviour - whereas you are just selling the stuff created by government money in the first place.
The concentration of wealth from state assets is real.
It's the perfect subterfuge. Government creates money and stuff for us. Government sells it. Some people do well out of it. Government says we can't have more stuff unless we tighten our belts. Everyone suffers. Neoliberalism is deemed a success. Labour comes along and says we must tighten our belts more for Neoliberalism and thus growth to flourish. Doesn't work. Rinse and repeat.
Truly Emperor's new clothes stuff.
Most voters have a basic understanding of economics, including the 30% who when asked say they would vote Reform.
I strongly suspect at least 52% of voters have a very poor understanding of economics, and we’re all paying the price.
As for bringing up Labour and NATO when invited to talk about patriotism, good on him. It doesn’t have to be about isolationism at all.
I don’t see a problem with anyone using the term “Beautiful Country” either. It’s a phrase I’d hope The Green Party will be using as well when it comes to widening appeal to more non-urban voters.
It is an accepted fact that political parties can expect a "conference bounce" following their party conferences and the media interest they generate.
It's not looking great for Starmer at the moment, the latest opinion poll (fieldwork yesterday) gives Reform UK a staggering 16 point lead over Labour.
https://findoutnow.co.uk/blog/voting-intention-1st-october-2025/
Our Voting Intention tracker shows Reform UK with a 16 point lead over Labour
On 19% that puts Labour on the same sort of support as Liz Truss managed for the Tories during her premiership.
Still I am sure everything will turn out just fine, as it did for the Tories.
I strongly suspect at least 52% of voters have a very poor understanding of economics, and we’re all paying the price.
Valid but not half as valid as recognising being out of the EU is not as damaging as the economic model we all think is working for us.
Again things were shitty whilst being in the EU for millions of people. Hence why many voted to leave -they couldn't feel the benefits.
Not everyone enjoyed duty free bike part imports.
You could also point out how dismally even compared to the UK how little the big EU countries are growing now.
In fact the UK has slipped to 4th place amongst the G7 but above Germany, France and Italy.
Germany is an appalling state in terms of the usual metrics for the past year to July 25.
I think Neoliberalism is sinking many previously successful countries - personally.
(I think the USA is about to get a smack in the chops too. But that's another story.)
As for bringing up Labour and NATO when invited to talk about patriotism, good on him. It doesn’t have to be about isolationism at all.
Forming military alliances is not a recognised definition of patriotism, and yet Labour supporting the formation of NATO, 76 years ago no less, was the best and only example that Starmer could think of.
Still perhaps Sir Keir Starmer just isn't very good at thinking on his feet without Morgan McSweeney whispering in his ear. Or in this particular case sitting down.
And yes "beautiful" is a beautiful word. In fact tremendously beautiful, to use another Trump favourite.
With policies pinched from Farage and rhetoric pinched from Trump (when it's not pinched from Enoch Powell) Sir Keir Starmer must surely have a winning combination. What's going wrong?
> duplicate post <
Forming military alliances is not a recognised definition of patriotism
If you want to move the conversation towards what is REALLY patriotism, rather than just nationalism, I think it’s the perfect example to use. Especially if you want to remind people that defending Britain and our allies is a Labour principle… even more so if that audience is one that is seemingly overly focused on a certain period in British history.
So what, the Irish aren't patriotic because they are not in NATO or any other military alliance?
Defending, quote, "our allies" is not example of patriotism.
Starmer doesn't appear to understand what patriotism is, which kinda of makes the point.
So what, the Irish aren't patriotic because they are not in NATO or any other military alliance?
I wouldn't say that at all. And to be clear, I didn't say that.
See my question mark?
Making a commitment to defend your allies is not an example of patriotism, the Irish are just as patriotic as the Brits despite making no such commitment.
Starmer is confusing patriotism with belligerence and a willingness to fight wars.
It is something which is extremely typical of right-wingers...... Thatcher, Blair, Farage, Starmer, all believe(d) that patriotism is about union jacks and British tanks going into battle, for whatever reason.
Starmer's immediate reference to NATO when asked about patriotism was simply the instinctive reaction of a right-winger.
Most voters have a basic understanding of economics
Do they bollocks!
Do they bollocks!
Well it is difficult to unpick a carefully presented counterargument such as that one but if most voters didn't understand basic economics then they would mostly be overdrawn/bankrupt.
Most voters understand economics sufficiently for their basic needs, and that is as much as they need to. In the same way that they can find an accountant which they can trust without necessarily having anything more than a very basic understanding of accountancy.
And there lies the problem for voters, finding a political party which will serve their best economic interests and which they can trust.
Back in the day it was much easier than it is now. If you were super-rich the answer was easy, the Tories. If you were comfortably well-off and middle-class you could perhaps con yourself that it was the Tories. And if you were working-class it was indisputably the Labour Party.
Then along came the centrists and upended everything. Now no one quite knows. Hence the unprecedented political instability which the UK is now experiencing.
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1973055105344655498?t=lDSQuziVpUUZBXjVrTtrng&s=19
Not being a sports person - can anyone tell me the significance of cutting a half time orange and it's likely impact on our lives?
I think to be fair to both of you Grips and Lynch- studying macro economics is one thing and is a complex unhinged conflicting mess for sure, but people are certainly affected by it - but we would see this through a micro-economic lens in our pockets.
I'd say both of you are correct.
Shake hands. 🤣
Not being a sports person - can anyone tell me the significance of cutting a half time orange and it's likely impact on our lives?
Whitehouse has criminally underused acting skills.
You don't need a degree in economics to understand that your rent, food, electricity, prices etc are all going up.
Yep, absolutely agree.
Well it is difficult to unpick a carefully presented counterargument such as that one but if most voters didn't understand basic economics then they would mostly be overdrawn/bankrupt.
There's a massive difference between household bills and "economics".
Another example; many will believe that Farage will detain 24k asylum seekers and negotiate with their countries of origin to return them.
Very few will ask, "How are you going to do that, Nige? Cut a quick deal with Iran, shouldn't be too difficult, especially as we (the E3) just snapped sanctions back on them for nuclear weapon violations"
And there lies the problem for voters, finding a political party which will serve their best economic interests and which they can trust.
That's the nub of the argument and it needs to be demonstrated through actions. The Conservatives failed with their household bills version of economics and austerity, Labour is failing, so we might as well try one of the others
Do they bollocks!
Depends what you mean by 'economics'. Most people understand that you can't spend money you don't have, unless you borrow it and pay it back later with added interest. They understand things like inflation because they experience it directly when they buy stuff. And they understand the effects of government spending (or the lack of) because they see it in their communities, in the services they use and their kids schools. What they probably don't understand is how the monetary system or stock market works. People may not know the theory but they instinctively understand the basics because they live with the effect every day.
Misunderstandings through deliberate tonics of lack of government money are entrenched.
I've posted this clip before but if one of Biden's top advisors can't explain how the government spends its money what chance does everyone else have?
The point is in the clip here the language of MMT is fundamentally clear - it's institutional language that's a mess - hence his drippy response.
The Bank of England’s Catherine Mann has called for interest rates to be held where they are for longer before making a larger cut to revive the sluggish growth outlook, citing a recent spike in consumer inflation expectations as evidence price rises were embedding into the economy.
You prefer unemployment and giving money to the wealthy over all other options then?
These people are dismal and badly reported on.
There's a massive difference between household bills and "economics".
But maybe not home economics 🙂 The point is that most people understand the concept of "limited resources", inflation, investment, etc, it affects their day-to-day living, and that's about as much as they need to understand. Anything much more complex they should quite rightly expect to be dealt with, on their behalf, by people they can trust, ie politicians.
And yes despite the much repeated Thatcher myth household budgets are not vaguely similar to state budgets. As rone regularly reminds us the government can legally print its own money, a privilege which is denied to the average voter.
Yeah sorry about that - but until Labour give up on their lack of money rhetoric they're culpable in supporting the rich against the rest of us.
The point is that most people understand the concept of "limited resources", inflation, investment, etc,
Ah so we are in agreement about something which then goes onto re-enforce my point yesterday. People's grasp of economics is very limited, limited to their own household budget experience (and yes many people are living on credit for a range of reasons). If Starmer promises improvements they all shout where's the money coming from, not me. Then because it suits their own prejudices they assume all the money is spent on migrants which we all know is not actually true. Talk about the wealthy having to pay more and those with the broadest shoulders taking more of the burden is always interpreted (rightly) as meaning more taxes on middle income earners, not the uber wealthy.
If Starmer says he's going to tackle the uber wealthy no one will actually believe him, and they will still assume it's middle income earners who will get clobbered again, look at the fuss made about taxing farmers (and tax avoiders who buy farms to avoid tax).
Try the Rone, the government can just print money approach and they'll think you are barking, if it was that easy why wasn't it done before for the benefit of everyone. Some may also point to Liz Truss and her unfunded spending plans and think about the affect it's still having on their mortgage.
Pinning our hopes on clawing back wealth from the properly wealthy is just fantasy, it shouldn't be but it is. So going back to the limited resources view of economics the only options are cuts and tax and spend, neither of which are very palatable for most people.
If Starmer promises improvements they all shout where's the money coming from, not me.
Where is your evidence that voters all shout "where's the money coming from" if the Prime Minister promises improvements?
All the evidence suggests that voters are very keen to hear a Prime Minister promise improvements. I think you might be confusing what right-wingers in the Tory and Labour parties shout and ordinary voters.
If Starmer says he's going to tackle the uber wealthy no one will actually believe him...
All you seem to be concerned about is what Keir Starmer might say or do in the future. Starmer won the general election, with a landslide, over a year ago. Now is the time to stop talking and get on with the job.
You seem to affected by the same syndrome as all the centrists behind Starmer, they are still in election mode and pretending that Starmer is powerless.
All you seem to be concerned about is what Keir Starmer might say or do in the future.
This is a very good point. Starmer and Labour are not in campaign mode, they're in govt with a massive majority. If they want to tax the uber-rich they could do it tomorrow (or at least in the next budget). That fact that they don't tells the voters all they need to know.
Besides if they are in campaign mode - I don't see good evidence of that being well thought out.
Anything but try and fix the damn place.
If Starmer promises improvements they all shout where's the money coming from, not me.
Easy answer to that is - the same place it always comes from - the consolidated fund at the BoE. Not Bonds etc.
The Consolidated Fund (CF) was first set up in 1787 as ‘one fund into which shall flow
every stream of public revenue and from which shall come the supply for every
service’. The basis of the financial mechanism by which the CF is operated is
governed by the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866
Both the CF and NLF are administered by HM Treasury (the Treasury), with the bank accounts
maintained at the Bank of England. The CF can therefore be regarded as central
government’s current account,
Besides if they are in campaign mode - I don't see good evidence of that being well thought out.
LOL! I was thinking that as I wrote it...... the consequence of being in constant election mode and not getting on with the job of creating significant improvements for ordinary voters is that support for Labour has collapsed. How ironic!
The excuse used to be "we can't do anything in opposition", then it was "we've only been in government a couple of months", now it's "what will people say?"
Excuses, excuses, excuses, always excuses. The problem is that voters seem to have had enough of excuses.
Where is your evidence that voters all shout "where's the money coming from" if the Prime Minister promises improvements?
It is a very common question for political pundits to ask whenever a politician says they are going to do something which costs money. The answer should be "don't you worry about that, just comment on the outcome when it is completed"
All the evidence suggests that voters are very keen to hear a Prime Minister promise improvements.
If the voters are on the same team as the PM, they say 'yes finally they are fixing things'. However, if the voters are on the other team, they say 'but where's the money coming from?'
You really don't get how completely irrational humans are.
The point is that most people understand the concept of "limited resources", inflation, investment, etc
Lol. Most people know what inflation is, but they have no idea what causes it or how this relates to policies.
Further restrictions on the right to protest incoming. How long before Starmer starts wearing orange makeup ?
"Authoritarian clique which seizes control of the Labour Party and deals with dissent through suspensions and expulsion is authoritarian in government shocker"
Who would have thought it, eh?
The new reformulated Labour Party..... right-wing, authoritarian, and with a generous helping of covert racism.
Give them a taste of power and we can say “this lady is for changing”
https://twitter.com/ShabanaMahmood/status/491480883292307456
https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1974785399076896816
I see that the latest poll Opinion poll taken during the Labour Party Conference shows that support for Labour has fallen by 1% whilst support for Reform has increased by 2%
Political parties can quite rightly expect a bounce in support during their conferences, Sir Keir Starmer has actually managed to do the complete opposite.
And far from damaging Reform by criticising them at Conference it would seem that Starmer has perhaps boosted their support.
The clown really has got the reverse Midas touch, he ****s up everything he touches. When is he going to do everyone a favour and resign?
The stubbornness of them to not recognise their lack of popularity and inability to make a good decision is quite incredible.
The clown really has got the reverse Midas touch, he ****s up everything he touches. When is he going to do everyone a favour and resign?
Why should he need to resign? Labour is in Government for the next four years. Speculative polls are just that, and are often wildly inaccurate.
Why should he need to resign?
He doesn't need to resign, but he does need to admit that his strategy of apeing Reform and the Tories has completely failed and that he will now pivot towards more traditional labour policies of making the lives of working people easier by redistributing money and resources from the rich. He's going to lose the next election anyway, he might as well use his massive majority to do some stuff to get the Labour base back on side. Instead though he's going to achieve the double whammy of implementing tory policies and still losing. 🤷♂️
Why should he need to resign?
Because he driving the fate of the country in the absolute wrong direction? And it's too much to chance to let him make anymore awful choices and time is running out.
I'd definitely have an eye on polls if I were him.
Well it looks like today they Kier has written in the Times to attempt to lose young voters.
Well it looks like today they Kier has written in the Times to attempt to lose young voters.
It's only fair - why should young people be excluded from being alienated ?
Speculative polls are just that, and are often wildly inaccurate.
No they aren't. They are very rarely, if ever, wildly inaccurate.
All the polls predicted that the Tories would get slaughtered at the last general election, that is precisely what happened. Now they are predicting a similar fate for Labour, there is no reason at all to doubt their validity.
Why should Starmer resign? For the sake of the country, voters, and the Labour Party. He is clearly a totally inept Prime Minister who isn't up to the job and has proved to be a gift to Nigel Farage.
"Speculative polls"... there is no general election any time soon... current polling is of little use when looking at voting in four years time... they are pretty accurate when looking at current voting sentiment though, so May elections are likely to be absolutely awful for Labour and the Conservatives, looking at current polling.
Polls are very accurate..... close to elections
further out they are less so, and historically Labour vote share is harder to predict than Tory,
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/how-accurate-are-polls-when-forecasting-election-outcomes/
only data i can find is from max 2 years out froma GE
we are 3.5 years away from an election, so what the results will be at the moment are anyones guess, blind faith in the validity of polls this far out seems naive, no matter how much they do confirm your own biases
ultimately it'l come down to how successful Labour are with making people feel better off and how services are being delivered
culture war issues like gaza, immigration, etc can change rapidly, what will their relevance be in 2029?
Kimbers I remember you celebrating Labour establishing a 2% lead over the Tories when Sir Keir Starmer first became leader and castigating me for not doing so. The fact that it was years away from a general election didn't seem to be an issue!
Currently Reform's lead over Labour is mostly in double digits, and they have led every single opinion poll since mid-April. It is probably time to recognise the urgency of the problem!
ultimately it'l come down to how successful Labour are with making people feel better off and how services are being delivered
culture war issues like gaza, immigration, etc can change rapidly, what will their relevance be in 2029?
Well they are not going to be successful by sticking with Starmer and Reeves as a year is enough to know they are really not the right people and don't have any ideas.
Not sure Gaza is a culture war but immigration will still be a big topic as it has been overblown as an issue for long time and is getting more overblown if anything. And rather than try and combat it (as say Polanski would) Starmer is going along with it.
Kimbers I remember you celebrating Labour establishing a 2% lead over the Tories when Sir Keir Starmer
Sorry, should I be celebrating Reforms poll lead?
Speculative polls are just that, and are often wildly inaccurate.
No they aren't. They are very rarely, if ever, wildly inaccurate.
All the polls predicted that the Tories would get slaughtered at the last general election, that is precisely what happened. Now they are predicting a similar fate for Labour, there is no reason at all to doubt their validity.
Why should Starmer resign? For the sake of the country, voters, and the Labour Party. He is clearly a totally inept Prime Minister who isn't up to the job and has proved to be a gift to Nigel Farage.
Those polls you refer to predicted an enormous Labour majority... it was big, but nowhere near as big as anticipated. And this was right before an election. Polls taken mid-term don't show true intentions because people say different things to get an outcome they desire.
What could he have done differently that would lead to a material change to where we are now? He needs some coaching on how to act in the modern world (tip: don't accept money from random people when you already earn in the top 95% bracket because it's a bribe in any other word). And I mean a genuine material change, since we've gone from centre-right to batshit crazy back to centre-right again in the last 15 years.
Labour has made some decisions and changed their mind. You might perceive it as u-turning, but that's a blinkered view. We should instead disparage governments that don't review their decisions and change them on the basis of new information. Changing them because voters are getting grumpy about them is a different argument, of course.
It's only been a year, when you think about it.
Kimbers I remember you celebrating Labour establishing a 2% lead over the Tories when Sir Keir Starmer
Sorry, should I be celebrating Reforms poll lead?
Wow, that takes deliberate disingenuous comments to a whole new level! 😂
Those polls you refer to predicted an enormous Labour majority... it was big, but nowhere near as big as anticipated. And this was right before an election. Polls taken mid-term don't show true intentions because people say different things to get an outcome they desire.
They were extraordinarily accurate, modern MRP polls in particular are. I think the YouGov MRP poll's prediction of individual seats was 94% correct.
YouGov only over estimated the number of seats Labour would win by 20 seats, which in the context of Labour actually winning 411 I call extremely accurate.
Obviously a couple of years before the general election the polls were predicting a much smaller majority for Labour, so what they are predicting now isn't inaccurate, it is just what the situation is right now.
If you think what is happening right now, ie Labour is massively unpopular, isn't important because everything will be just fine in 2029 then you have nothing to worry about. And of course there is no reason at all why Sir Keir Starmer should resign.
Although I would be very interested indeed in knowing how how you think things will magically change for Labour. Any clues?
Crisis? What crisis?
Although I would be very interested indeed in knowing how how you think things will magically change for Labour. Any clues?
how it will change?
I have no idea, Im not too optimistic, Starmer has fallen into the trap of chasing reform voters that will never vote labour, his personal popularity is much harder to fix and hes done his reputation no favours, his delivery is often flat and uninspiring.
but as I said earlier IF people are feeling better off in their pockets and they see services around them improving then Labours prospects will definitely improve 'its the economy stupid ' still holds true
How they achieve that:
#1 keep inflation low- that is what people care about most- populism flourishes when people are financially desperate
#2 grow the economy- hampered massively by our post brexit economy and trumps tariffs
#3 Better services- (massively) reduce NHS wait time, fill potholes, bobbies on the beat , revitalise high streets
#4 more houses- its a shitshow at the moment for the young
#5 fix imigration, by that I mean safe legal routes (keeps libs happy) & deport those whose claims fail(robs farage of grievance to peddle) -kinda like the new 1 in 1 out scheme but massively expanded.
Thats it, pull all that off and theyll win the election and Reform will be left to ranting on GBNews and Question time
can they do that in 3.5 years? no. The global headwinds are too strong and 15 years of austerity has left the country too far up the creek,
how far along with each of those things will determine where the polls end up on election day
Thanks for not dodging the question kimbers, top man 👍
I agree with most of that. It's worth pointing out though that the UK currently has the fastest growing economy in the G7. So I think the most obvious thing missing from your to-do list imo is redistribution of wealth and reducing the growing inequality of recent decades.
That would drive a horse and cart through Reform. However such a radical proposition could never be on the cards with such a centrist government that is very noticeably to the right of Gordon Brown.
I'm hoping all that list comes good Kimbers... I don't think it would be enough to stop the momentum behind Reform though... better off, in a better economy, with better services will not be enough to stop the rising tide of hate and misinformation that is coming towards Labour in the next few years (and the Greens & LibDems to a lesser extent).
The problem for the polling companies is that last time it was a strong “anyone but Tories” with tactical voting (as witnessed by the Lib Dem vote) and a lot of seats won by relatively narrow majorities. So, not only will it take a relatively small swing against Labour for them to lose a disproportionate number of seats, any swing against could go to several different parties depending on local conditions, and all well within the usual margin of error.
in FPTP and 3 relatively equal parties tiny swings make huge differences. We saw this in the last GE where labour got a huge majority not because they were popular but because the vote against them was split.
Also we have very much regional differences with parties concentrating their support in some areas
Good luck to that as long as cost of fuel remains high.#1 keep inflation low
The govt will be grinning from ear to ear if they can hit 2% growth (I think 1.4% is currently projected but still better than many in EU)#2 grow the economy
Where does the money come from?#3 Better services
Well, if the jobs are all located in the big cities there will never be affordable house.#4 more houses
The more the world is at war the more people will seek asylum. The problem is to separate the genuine ones from the fakes.#5 fix imigration
#5 fix imigration, by that I mean safe legal routes (keeps libs happy) & deport those whose claims fail(robs farage of grievance to peddle) -
Asylum seekers are a relatively small proportion of total immigration. Farage-ist grievances aren't limited to asylum seekers.
What happens after you create a UK-specific safe legal right to claim asylum for any prospective asylum seeker anywhere in the world?
Farage-ist grievances aren't limited to asylum seekers.
He will adopt Trump's style immigration policies. i.e. everyone out.
None of them will qualify.What happens after you create a UK-specific safe legal right to claim asylum for any prospective asylum seeker anywhere in the world?
This is correct. The small boats are annoying but 50,000 per year is a drop in the bucket. The large cities worth of people every year seemingly forever is the real issue.
we currently have no legal route to claim asylum in the uk
This is correct. The small boats are annoying but 50,000 per year is a drop in the bucket. The large cities worth of people every year seemingly forever is the real issue.
you mean those folk that come here to work in the NHS? huge problem without them
I think you are not allowed to enter to claim it, but if you are already here then the act of claiming is not illegal.
TJ makes a decent and often used argument. I’m sure someone will fact check me but the last time I looked the % of NHS staff who are immigrants is roughly the same as the % in the population at large so it’s neither here nor there as far as I’m concerned.
If we as a country cannot train and retain enough NHS staff ourselves then this needs to be looked at. The answer shouldn’t be to poach them from the rest of the world, the countries that they come from need them as much as we do.
edit - talking bobbins 🙂
The proportion of non-UK staff is higher for doctors (35%) and nurses (28%) than for staff overall (19%).
Here are the stats on immigrants working in the NHS
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7783/
If we as a country cannot train and retain enough NHS staff ourselves then this needs to be looked at. The answer shouldn’t be to poach them from the rest of the world, the countries that they come from need them as much as we do.
Well yes but that's not an argument that I have ever heard people like Nigel Farage really make. He moans about immigrants coming to the UK, helped by Sir Keir Starmer talking bollocks about "incalculable damage", without any recognition of their contribution or accepting that we would be properly ****ed without them.
The anti-immigrant nonsense that the Farages of this world spout feeds a toxic mixture of hate and division and contributes nothing positive to society.
Sometimes I feel like I’m the last person in England to not give a **** if someone was born elsewhere. Why the fascination? And why are we letting these hate mongers dominate everything? I’m sick of the conversation being constantly dominated by the hatred and scapegoating of immigrants (well, people that look and sound like immigrants to the xenophobes and racists and hard of thinking). Why can’t people grow the **** up, tell the likes of Farage to **** off, and get to know people rather than label others as the problem because they look foreign to them.
I’m sure someone will fact check me but the last time I looked the % of NHS staff who are immigrants is roughly the same as the % in the population at large so it’s neither here nor there as far as I’m concerned.
Yes, it’s not just the NHS that would be decimated by a mass deportation programme of the type that Farage is now including in his policy basket of monstrosities; migrants that currently have a right to work and live here but are not citizens are essential to lots of services and industries.
As I pointed out many weeks ago, immigration should be based on the needs of the country. If the country needs 500,000 new people a year to do stuff that supports the country and can't be done without them then great. But isn't that sort of the process already with visas?
Anyone claiming we shouldn't need them then fix whatever is requiring the country to import labour and then cancel/don't extend visas. I am sure Starmer has that in hand.
We don't need asylum seekers, just like no other country needs them but sometimes we just have to be kind!
But that's still labelling people born abroad as a resource, one that we are trying to "use" less of.... it's just rationalising the feeling that it is people born here that are all that really matter. I really don't care if in my pharmacist was born in Nigeria, or my plumber in Brazil, or my co-worker in France. I'm very aware that many people in this country feel otherwise, but why do we let that feeling dominate politics? It's the "you can't talk about" subject that is all we seem to talk about.
Although I would be very interested indeed in knowing how how you think things will magically change for Labour. Any clues?
I don't think things will change, unfortunately. But I also don't think there's anything they can do to actually address that. They can't out-Reform Reform. Would swapping Starmer for Burnham change things? I think unlikely in the long run.
What I do think has happened is that they've discovered that making changes to anything is exceptionally difficult when things move slowly and lobby groups / big industry has its mitts all over parliament. Ed Milliband was enthusiastically pushing for improvements to energy production, supply, and pricing before the election, and now he's discovered just how corrupt the energy tanker is.
Change in attitude to prisons etc is welcome, but actually something that Michael Gove was doing a decade ago.
While Labour has a big majority and knowing they're going to lose the next election to Reform - can you see a realistic way that they can avoid this? - they should be biting the bullet and making the changes which are unpopular but necessary. Proper tax reform, proper planning reform (the cost of planning for HS2 probably exceeds the material cost of building it), possibly pension reform (ahem - triple lock), shift investment away from London into the poorer areas of the country.
But that's still labelling people born abroad as a resource
Everyone is a resource if you look at it that way. People are needed to do stuff and those that can't for whatever reason should be looked after. The point is we will always need to import additional resources for 1,000s of different reasons and that is how Starmer should be representing it along with the damage of blindly reducing numbers rather than joining in with Farage.
