The 'current' situation is partly of Labour's making so it follows a different version of Labour could create a different climate?
Partly, yes. But the 'current' situation is mostly nothing to do with Labour's making... and even if a new leader improved the situation, anything they did would get little to no credit, and all the stuff that remains to fix they would be blamed for. That is the reality for this government, and there is no shiny new leader who can change that for them. If you think there is... name them...
I think lots of things have run their course that need proper change
It does seem that our entire system of government is now completely dysfunctional and not fit for purpose
That is the reality for this government, and there is no shiny new leader who can change that for them. If you think there is... name them...
Well yeah, when a political party is in the firm grip of an authoritarian clique, as Labour are, there are often no obvious candidates for leadership, those in charge make sure of that.
However the obvious name with regards to Labour at this present moment is the mayor of Manchester. Obviously the fact he is a mayor and not an MP presents a real problem. But whilst I believe that not even Andy Burnham could save Labour from losing the next general election and I do believe that he might possibly stop the catastrophic meltdown that Starmer would almost certainly guarantee.
Tbh I think it is a very similar solution for the Tories too. Moving further to the right under Kemi Badenoch in response to the threat from Reform has not helped them one iota. All the hard-right voters have already deserted them for the Reform so what is the point of trying to appeal to them? They won't be coming back, that's obvious.
If the Tories moved to the left, even actually more to the left of Starmer on issues such as public ownership of the utilities (as Nigel Farage is attempting to do) they could possibly draw some support back especially from the LibDems and even the Greens (in last year's local elections the Greens won more seats from the Tories than any other party) A more sensible Tory Party might appeal to those not interested in the swivel-eyed nonsense of Reform Trump supporters.
However the obvious name with regards to Labour at this present moment is the mayor of Manchester. Obviously the fact he is a mayor and not an MP presents a real problem. But whilst I believe that not even Andy Burnham could save Labour from losing the next general election and I do believe that he might possibly stop the catastrophic meltdown that Starmer would almost certainly guarantee
I don’t believe for a second that Andy Burnham has the remotest interest in returning to Westminster, let alone be leader or PM.
I think that his alleged (by an overexcited press pack) leadership bid was nothing of the sort. It was the opposite! What it was, in reality, was him putting as much distance as possible between himself and the car crash in number 10 ahead of local elections in May.
Andy was voted in last time with 67% of the vote. People vote for him despite the Labour Party connections, not because of them. And Manchesters economy is booming, with the kind of economic growth Rachael Reeves can only dream about.
He has cross-party appeal across the region and he was just restating his idealogical differences from the present shambles in number ten, in no uncertain terms.
If the Tories moved to the left, even actually more to the left of Starmer on issues such as public ownership of the utilities (as Nigel Farage is attempting to do) they could possibly draw some support back especially from the LibDems and even the Greens (in last year's local elections the Greens won more seats from the Tories than any other party) A more sensible Tory Party might appeal to those not interested in the swivel-eyed nonsense of Reform Trump supporters.
Exactly, that's why a Labour/Tory coalition would be perfect. Keep the fantasists on both sides out. Tories just need to find a nice, normal centre right person to take the lead.
Tories just need to find a nice, normal centre right person to take the lead
Good luck with that in the present Reform Tribute Party
Exactly, that's why a Labour/Tory coalition would be perfect. Keep the fantasists on both sides out.
Blimey, did you use the word "fantasists"?
A more sensible Tory Party might appeal to those not interested in the swivel-eyed nonsense of Reform Trump supporters.
That is exactly what the people I work with want. They hate Labour because they "take all their money" and now they hate the tories because while they may be privileged and selfish (in a looking after themselves point of view) they are not horrible people generally and not obviously racist.
I don’t believe for a second that Andy Burnham has the remotest interest in returning to Westminster, let alone be leader or PM.
That wasn't the question, it was whether there is anyone in the Labour Party that could do a significantly better job than Sir Keir Starmer.
Besides Burnham has very recently and very clearly not ruled out a return to Westminster. If he didn't have the remotest interest in returning to Westminster it would be extremely easy for him to unambiguously rule it out and squash further speculation.
Blimey, did you use the word "fantasists"?
Are you partially sighted? Or you're just not sure what a fantasist is? If you read some of Rone's posts it should give you a pretty good idea. I don't think we've got any swivel eyed Reform members currently, so we can't see the other end of the spectrum, unfortunately.
Or you're just not sure what a fantasist is?
Someone who thinks that the Tories and Labour could somehow form a dream coalition government?
Are you partially sighted?
Not enough to be blind to the fact that the latest YouGov MRP poll suggests that the combined Tory-Labour vote would be 189, well short of what is required even for a coalition government.
Besides Burnham has very recently and very clearly not ruled out a return to Westminster. If he didn't have the remotest interest in returning to Westminster it would be extremely easy for him to unambiguously rule it out and squash further speculation.
Unless you’re just raising your profile with your ACTUAL electorate, making a bit of mischief and just fueling speculation from an over-excitable Westminster press pack?
Like I said, I don’t think he has the remotest interest in heading south. There’s the small matter of becoming an MP(for where?), I can’t imagine many in Westminster would be pleased to see him and why bother when you’re the de facto ‘King of the North’?
making a bit of mischief
So Andy Burnham thinks that with the leadership crisis that Labour are currently facing it is a great time to cause "a bit of mischief"? I doubt it.
And if he has 67% of the vote and cross-party appeal why does Burnham need to raise his profile with his ACTUAL electorate?
You know how politics works, right? Particularly in this ‘personality’ era. I don’t know if you’d noticed but Andy is quite good at it. Certainly much better than anyone in the Labour Party in Parliament.
The reaction from most people in Greater Manchester (there’s 3.5 million of us) was that they didn’t want to lose him to London, so job jobbed there then.
Anyway… Can you think of any reason whatsoever why you would leave a region that you basically rule, which has a booming economy and lots of good things happening, to go and pick up that particular poisoned chalice, with an economy that’s basically completely ****ed and everything looks truly grim?
You’d have to be bloody stupid, and he certainly isn’t that..
Someone who thinks that the Tories and Labour could somehow form a dream coalition government?
One fantasy does not make you a fantasist. If, as you say, Labour are now centre right, then it would be perfectly logical for them to form a coalition with the other major centre right party. A poll is meaningless at this point in time, the election is years away. People will take the best option they have from the choice available. If the Tories can make a return to the sensible centre right then voters will come back. Nobody with a brain actually thinks Nigel can run the country. Their energy policy alone is completely batshit.
Unless you’re just raising your profile with your ACTUAL electorate
Binners he's clearly signalled that he wants to be PM. IIRC last time he was asked he said something along the lines of 'If I didn't want to be PM, I wouldn't have stood for the leadership on two occasions, and I still wouldn't rule it out'. That's a long way from 'I'm throwing my hat in the ring to challenge Starmer' but it's obvious what he's thinking.
Aaaah right…. Playing the (very, very) long game?
Personality gets your over the hurdle - changing lives for the better keeps you there.
poll is meaningless at this point in time, the election is years away.
They're clearly not meaningless - it's the best snapshot you have at the time of where things probably are.
It's also gives you trajectory. Been pretty much down from the off with Labour.
Political parties do study them despite what what they say.
Can you think of any reason whatsoever why you would leave a region that you basically rule, which has a booming economy and lots of good things happening, to go and pick up that particular poisoned chalice, with an economy that’s basically completely ****ed and everything looks truly grim?
Because you might want to repeat that model on a greater scale?
And ultimately the way things are configured for more people to thrive it makes sense to get the country firing and then it's better for everyone.
After all such as Manchester etc do benefit from a functioning macro economy system too.
. And Manchesters economy is booming, with the kind of economic growth Rachael Reeves can only dream about.
Manchester's economy will be part of the GDP.
It's worth bearing in mind that Manchester (Greater Manchester? I don't know.) doesn't have the power that Rachel Reeves has to spend either.
They use the currency that is in circulation - and probably access grants etc.
Reeves' power is on a different level - which is why it's worse that she can't seem to pull the correct levers.
you read some of Rone's posts it should give you a pretty good idea.
Prove it - or carry on being a jerk.
That is the reality for this government, and there is no shiny new leader who can change that for them. If you think there is... name them
But that's their problem - it's not for us to point that out. It's for them to find a solution.
"Nobody with a brain actually thinks Nigel can run the country. Their energy policy alone is completely batshit."
Problem is, politics is increasingly not about running a country or making lives better... It's purely about winning. Or more accurately, trying to make sure everyone else loses.
This is where Zack, Ed (and Andy if he chooses) should be pushing their agendas as they genuinely seem to want to improve things and aren't just in it for the smug glory.
TBH, I think Kier feels that way too as a person. Just currently struggling to make that obvious as a politician and PM.
I don’t know if you’d noticed but Andy is quite good at it.
He had an open goal when he ran for leader and couldn't even manage to beat the joke token leftie.
I didn't think that Brois Johnson, Theresa May, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak or even Kier Starmer could run the country. Was I wrong ?
After reflection I'll happily vote for Zack.
I can’t promise that
Rumours are circulating tonight that Binners is planning a tilt at the leadership of the Labour Party. Binners, who represents a former factory town near Stockport, has refused to rule out a leadership bid. Commentators say he could pose a real challenge to the authoritarian Starmer regime if he can knock off the Life of Brian shitposting and focus on politics.
Jasmine, back to you in the studio.
UK growth slows again to 0.1% Q3
More 'fantasy' economics for Jamz. Let's keep doing the same things shall we? The things that keep destroying the economy. More proof that lack of investment and subservience to black-holes, fiscal rules and OBR planning puts the economy on the wrong footing.
Reeves needs to go for broke and pretty much ditch every single bit of her 'plan'.
Remember this is a growth orientated programme and government.
I wonder, although doubtful - whether the plot twist will be Starmer throwing Reeves under a bus just after the budget to save his skin?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c87427qpzrpt
More 'fantasy' economics for Jamz. Let's keep doing the same things shall we? The things that keep destroying the economy.
A lot of people are happy with their lot and don't want to risk upsetting things and see anything that is required to actually improve things as radical and dangerous (I work with a lot of them). Jamz is one of those people.
More 'fantasy' economics for Jamz. Let's keep doing the same things shall we? The things that keep destroying the economy.
A lot of people are happy with their lot and don't want to risk upsetting things and see anything that is required to actually improve things as radical and dangerous (I work with a lot of them). Jamz is one of those people.
Where are we getting this idea that I support Labour's policies from?! I want lower spending (i.e. less money to the unproductive), and then lower (within reason) tax when the country's finances are in a better state. That would upset a lot of people (as we saw in this thread) but it would be good for the country as a whole.
and see anything that is required to actually improve things as radical and dangerous
I can’t imagine why…
Jamz is one of those people.
So just a selfish **** then? I mean that was evident when he said we should stop giving handouts to the disabled and people who couldn't work due to health reasons but at least we know now.
Where are we getting this idea that I support Labour's policies from?!
Well you want the continuation of centre right politics that we have had for the last 60 years. Starmers Labour can be best described as a tory coalition.
I am fascinated by given how badly the "sensible centre right" have performed you want to keep it up. Bearing in mind that they have pissed away most of the countries assets and so we are now paying rent on those.
So just a selfish **** then?
Yep. sounds like. All they want is for less privileged and shat on people to get absolutely nothing and have an even worse life as long as they pay less tax so they can be even better off. Nice people.
I mean that was evident when he said we should stop giving handouts to the disabled and people who couldn't work due to health reasons but at least we know now.
I don't remember saying that? I would certainly make changes - like removing depression/anxiety as a disability, but I would not remove benefits for people who are actually disabled.
I am fascinated by given how badly the "sensible centre right" have performed you want to keep it up.
Increasing spending on benefits, and increasing tax on productive work to pay for increased spending, are not features of a centre right government.
and see anything that is required to actually improve things as radical and dangerous
I can’t imagine why…
I certainly can, because it challenges the status quo.
However the so-called "centre" has failed spectacularly and it is abundantly clear that there is growing appeal among the electorate for radical alternatives.
Hence the latest YouGov poll putting combined support for Reform and the Greens at 41%
People are fed up with the status quo, they want change. Which is what Starmer promised but has failed to deliver or even sound inspirational about.
I would certainly make changes - like removing depression/anxiety as a disability.
Why..... have you got medical qualifications which leads you to believe that depression and anxiety are not disabilities?
How exactly would you describe depression and anxiety?
And since according to you depression and anxiety are not disabilities would you stop the NHS from dispensing prescription medication and providing psychiatric support for those conditions?
like removing depression/anxiety as a disability
Thanks for confirming. If you think people suffering from depression and anxiety should not receive help then you are in fact a selfish ****.
Increasing spending on benefits, and increasing tax on productive work to pay for increased spending, are not features of a centre right government.
True, taxing work while the owners of capital hoard ever more is far far from a centrist economic model, not that the laughably self proclaimed centrists will ever admit to how far right they really are.
People are fed up with the status quo, they want change.
Indeed. For 40 years now everyone has been told 'this is how things work, it's just the way it is'. Even now after 4 decades of increasing insecurity, falling wages and rising prices, the main establishment politicians in labour, the tories and lib dems are saying 'there is no alternative'. Well people are waking up to the fact that there are alternatives, and they can't be any worse than the shite they've had to put up with for most of their lives.
Increasing spending on benefits, and increasing tax on productive work to pay for increased spending, are not features of a centre right government.
Leaving aside the problem of defining "productive work" if you look at reality vs the claims then it is very much a feature of the centre right although in the past it has mostly been hidden by selling assets on the cheap to avoid a direct tax rise. In climbing circles for example many older climbers reminisce fondly about dole queue climbing.
If we look at what "spending on benefits" includes we can see a large proportion spent on pensions which is very much a centre right feature.
We also see the hidden subsidies for businesses with many people on "benefits" actually working full time jobs but just not being paid sufficiently. Now who really is the beneficiary of those payments? The employee or the company?
We have also seen a massive increase in the cost of housing benefits. Which are purely down to the centre rights policy of selling housing off cheap (in part to keep taxes down) which has now come back to bite us.
Lets see, whats next, the privatisation of social care which has resulted in massively higher costs. A fine centre right policy that.
This is ultimately the problem with the centre right policies. It works fine until the bills come due. Unfortunately for us they have now.
Thanks for confirming. If you think people suffering from depression and anxiety should not receive help then you are in fact a selfish ****.
Don't be so harsh. Perhaps Jamz is just depressed and anxious about his situation and this is causing him issues with empathy?
Or maybe he's just a big tough guy? It's hard to tell.
Interesting research about reform voters and what is driving them.
Splits them into five groups which is going to be a problem for Farages policies. It suggests that there are better options for Starmer to try and capture voters from them than just repeating their more unpleasant policies.
Why..... have you got medical qualifications which leads you to believe that depression and anxiety are not disabilities?
How exactly would you describe depression and anxiety?
And since according to you depression and anxiety are not disabilities would you stop the NHS from dispensing prescription medication and providing psychiatric support for those conditions?
No, but I do quite enjoy watching GPs Behind Closed Doors. You only need to watch a few episodes to see why it is that the NHS is in such a mess. While we're on the subject, GP appointments certainly need to be paid for, and missed appointments could have hefty charge too.
Leaving aside the problem of defining "productive work" if you look at reality vs the claims then it is very much a feature of the centre right although in the past it has mostly been hidden by selling assets on the cheap to avoid a direct tax rise
Well, yes - we're talking centre right in principle. The triple lock obviously needs to be scrapped, same for the winter fuel payment, and wealthy pensioners should be paying more tax.
Plenty of folk on the right, myself included, are against privatisation where there is no scope for a properly functioning market to regulate price - utilities obviously being the classic example.
What you describe are the problems of governments buying voters/corruption.
why is no one taking about this story?
Because it's not for another two weeks?
"Mr Ewen will be shaving off his moustache at Okehampton Rugby Club on 29 November."
However the so-called "centre" has failed spectacularly
Yet both the left and the right have failed to convince the electorate that their solutions would not fail even more spectacularly.
And given the result of the recent ‘radical solutions’ tried (having been voted for by absolutely nobody) it’s not difficult to see why.
it is abundantly clear that there is growing appeal among the electorate for radical alternatives.
Is there? Maybe so, but probably not in the way you’d like.
It’s worth just noting that you’d be hard pushed to be less representative of the views of the wider electorate than ‘The 6’ who all furiously and boomingly agree with each other on threads/echo chambers like this.
Anyway, you’re all back in your comfort zone… hurling self-righteous abuse at anyone who dares to have the temerity to disagree with you or offer an alternative opinion, so I’ll leave you to it.
Yet both the left and the right have failed to convince the electorate that their solutions would not fail even more spectacularly.
Where is your evidence?
I have already pointed out that the latest YouGov poll puts the combined Reform-Green vote at 41%. The same YouGov poll puts the combined Labour-LibDem vote (if you still want to call them centre parties) at 33%.
Add the Tory 18% vote into the equation and you have a clear majority of the electorate who are rejecting the "centre" parties.
And beyond the opinion polls expect Reform and the Greens to hoover the votes in next year's local elections. Combined they will very likely represent the majority of voters.
Anyway, you’re all back in your comfort zone… hurling self-righteous abuse at anyone who dares to have the temerity to disagree with you or offer an alternative opinion, so I’ll leave you to it.
Oh the irony of you accusing others of being in a comfort zone when you refuse to accept the urgency of the situation. And of course also the irony of you accusing others of, quote, "hurling self-righteous abuse"
Leading cause of death in men under 50.
Assumes tory position - Clearly their own fault for not trying hard enough and trying to fake some illness that is not real, **** em.
Assumes tory position
They should just pull themselves together TBH. Bloody snowflakes.
It’s worth just noting that you’d be hard pushed to be less representative of the views of the wider electorate than ‘The 6’ who all furiously and boomingly agree with each other on threads/echo chambers like this.
Binners unless it's escaped your attention the tanking in the polls of both the tories and labour inidicates the wider electorate appears to agree with the opinion on here that neoliberal 'status quo' economics has failed. You carry on with your blinkers on though, just like those in the Labour party who still assume people will vote for them because they've got nowhere else to go. We'll see who's right in May after the local elections.
We have also seen a massive increase in the cost of housing benefits. Which are purely down to the centre rights policy of selling housing off cheap (in part to keep taxes down) which has now come back to bite us.
Nothing is purely down to one thing. In parallel to the massive and stupid selloff of socal housing on one hand, there has also been huge population growth (mostly driven by immigration) without corresponding housing supply being increased.
In other words, even if no council houses had been sold, housing benefits would still be much higher because there are more people that need housing and housing costs so much more.
In other words, even if no council houses had been sold, housing benefits would still be much higher because there are more people that need housing and housing costs so much more.
Fair point although if we had maintained a proper council housing system then we could have more easily adjusted upwards and so absorbed some of it vs leaving it to the building companies who have zero incentive to solve the issue.
Yeah what I found particularly interesting is that the 29% middle-class/income voters outnumbered the "working right" which I assume is a euphemism for working class.
Yes, when you look at the breakdown lots of middle class/well paid types. It provides a far better view than the simplistic one often presented especially the "they are just racists".
In other words, even if no council houses had been sold, housing benefits would still be much higher because there are more people that need housing and housing costs so much more.
I disagree, the cost of council housing would be lower and anchor the whole housing market at a lower level. Also with a functioning state owned housing infrastructure, the government would be more easily be able to build the homes that are required, of the type required and to a modern standard without being at the mercy of the markets, banks, developers and landlords each demanding maximum profits from people who need homes.
of the type required and to a modern standard without being at the mercy of the markets, banks, developers and landlords each demanding maximum profits from people who need homes.
Amen to that.
A necessary product with limited supply, and the addition of profit on top is a criminal way to organise housing.
We really need to sort out the foundations of the real economy with real resource available before we look at the paper 'cost' to the government.
https://news.sky.com/story/police-and-crime-commissioner-roles-to-be-abolished-13469590
Sounds like a sensible move by the government IMHO
‘The 6’
Probably I'm a bit out of the loop here, but were we ever told who this illustrious group consists of ?
Sounds like a sensible move by the government IMHO
It was only ever a gravy train for political lackeys anyway. I remember former Labour MP Tony Lloyd getting ‘elected’ (by about the 6 people who bother voting in these things) in Greater Manchester.
Literally his first act was to create a position of his deputy and immediately appointed his campaign manager and mate on an enormous salary (of public money).
Pretty much sums it up
Probably I'm a bit out of the loop here, but were we ever told who this illustrious group consists of ?
You'll have to ask binners, it was a product of his over-active imagination.
‘The 6’
Probably I'm a bit out of the loop here, but were we ever told who this illustrious group consists of ?
Isn't it glaringly obvious who "The 6" are ? How many people do you know on here who are critical of Sir Keir Starmer ?
And just to remind you this is Sir Keir Starmer the most unpopular Prime Minister on record and who 79% of voters say they are dissatisfied with, not some other geezer.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/30/uk/keir-starmer-labour-party-conference-intl
Although previous leaders have joined despised foreign wars, bungled responses to a pandemic and nearly sent the economy into meltdown, none have been as unpopular as Starmer, according to Ipsos, a leading pollster. Just 13% of voters say they are satisfied with Starmer, while 79% are unsatisfied.
We really need to sort out the foundations of the real economy with real resource available before we look at the paper 'cost' to the government.
This is the crux of the matter Rone - real resources have to be bought with real money. In MMT land you can't afford to buy cement from China because you have trashed the value of the pound. China doesn't accept your make-believe money.
Farewell cycle-to-work schemes now. Yes, it is a tax dodge that disproportionately benefited the middle-to-well-off, but the long term cost savings thanks to the health benefits vastly outnumbered the loss in tax revenue. It's back to the "what will make Reform voters happy" and a targeted attack on cyclists is an easy win.
Isn't it glaringly obvious who "The 6" are ? How many people do you know on here who are critical of Sir Keir Starmer ?
Aah, Ok. I hadn't understood that "The 6" actually means "The 6 hundred".
In MMT land you can't afford to buy cement from China because you have trashed the value of the pound.
Oh give over. There is no evidence that the value of the pound would crash if we based govt spending on MMT. There would still be controls over how much was spent/borrowed in order to control inflation (the central aim of MMT) and other countries with sovereign fiat currencies are doing the same thing (including China) so the net effect is largely stable currency values.
China doesn't accept your make-believe money.
All money is 'make believe' money. That's how fiat currencies work. China already accepts our make believe money because we do billions of pounds of trade with it already, and conversely we accept their make believe money in exchange. The use of fiat currencies is a global system which is interdependent. There's very little chance of a single major global currency like the pound collapsing on its own.
We really need to sort out the foundations of the real economy with real resource available before we look at the paper 'cost' to the government.
This is the crux of the matter Rone - real resources have to be bought with real money. In MMT land you can't afford to buy cement from China because you have trashed the value of the pound. China doesn't accept your make-believe money.
You appear to have spectacularly missed MSP's and rone's point.
Rone's comment was in response to this post by MSP :
Also with a functioning state owned housing infrastructure, the government would be more easily be able to build the homes that are required
Money is NEVER a problem when it comes to building homes. After WW2 the UK was utterly skint, it didn't have a pot to piss in, and yet after creating the first universal free healthcare service in the Western world this country embarked on the greatest house building programme in UK history.
In fact at the peak of the UK's housebuilding programme the (Tory) minister responsible, Harold McMillan, was nicknamed the "council house builder".
So where did this money come from? Simple, it was borrowed. And how could the government afford to borrow so much money? Simple, investment in house building is always risk free. There is a reason why they say "as safe as houses"
Whether for sale or for rent house building always pays for itself. The rent paid over the lifetime of social housing always pays for the cost of the build, hence Margaret Thatcher's argument when she flogged off social housing massively discounted to the tenants.
Furthermore the argument for a government house building programme isn't solely based on the fact that it is quite a nice thing to do, it also has a massively positive effect on the economy. Construction is quite rightly called the economic indicator because construction stimulates the economy so much, more than any other industry.
.And not just directly through the supply of labour and materials but also through stimulating other sectors such as furniture manufacturers, carpet and curtain manufacturers, IT, household appliances manufacturers and distributors, retail outlets, etc.
So the postwar social housing programme was absolutely vital in getting the UK economy back on its feet, as it would be also today.
Unfortunately the UK economy is more focused on serving vested interests than serving the needs of society.
All money is 'make believe' money. That's how fiat currencies work. China already accepts our make believe money ....
Ironically China was the first country in the world to print paper money, something like a thousand years ago.
Anyway, you’re all back in your comfort zone… hurling self-righteous abuse at anyone who dares to have the temerity to disagree with you or offer an alternative opinion, so I’ll leave you to it.
The quality of flounce has really gone downhill round here. No shouty caps, no swear filter avoidance, not even a recycled meme. Only for the protagonist to perform a full reverse petticoat manoeuvre and reappear three hours later as though nothing had happened.
0/10.
What’s it like, being you?
What’s it like, being you?
U OK Hun......is the nasty man being beastly to you for your usual and very predictable abuse of anyone to the left of Tony Blair?
Anyway moving on from the bitchiness that tends to characterise political threads and back on topic, say what you like about Starmer but he is very good at one thing at least...... dodging a question.
https://twitter.com/ITVNewsPolitics/status/1988975414384160983?s=20
An impressive response when directly asked if the budget and next May's local elections need to go well for both the Labour Party and the country to retain confidence in him.
Although bearing in mind a recent poll said that more than three-quarters of voters believe Starmer is doing a bad job that particular question is probably being asked too late. Besides, I will be surprised if he is still PM when the next local elections come anyway.
Besides, I will be surprised if he is still PM when the next local elections come anyway.
I would be surprised if he wasnt. The locals are in May so we have 7ish months with Christmas getting in the way.
So any challenge with voting and stuff will push it I expect to probably March at best before the new bod gets in charge.
That doesnt give a lot of chance to make changes which will appeal to voters and so I suspect they will get their arse kicked in the local elections and, unfairly, be blamed for it leading up to another challenge.
The time to replace him would be 2027ish so you can blame most of it on him but still have time to start putting policies in place.
Could well be wrong though since have been on plenty of occasions including several where I was "its a bad idea so they wont do it" when I was wrong about the second part but right about the first eg Sunak calling an early election.
This is the crux of the matter Rone - real resources have to be bought with real money. In MMT land you can't afford to buy cement from China because you have trashed the value of the pound. China doesn't accept your make-believe money.
This is so silly. And so badly informed. The pound is all we have - our currency. Only the UK government can issue the pound. So what is non-real money? What are you talking about?
Tanked the value of the pound v what? Dollar? MMT. Yen? MMT. Can$ MMT. Are all the MMT countries tanking against each other all the time? Of course they're not.
As for make believe money - it works by the 'backing' of the government - that is the point. Your high-street bank blows up - guess who steps in - not the private sector - the bloody government come to your rescue to the tune of 85,000. I wonder where they get that make believe money from? Could it be the BoE or do think the BoE needs to borrow private money?
When the banks went bust during the GFC - who bailed it out? Did the private sector bail out the private sector? When COVID hit who supported the country - it was the government with its own bank.
The UK is in MMT land operationally whether you like it or not. It's exactly how it works NOW. The USA is in MMT land as is Canada, NZ, JPN etc.
There is so much nonsense and misunderstanding about how currencies work which is why I have to keep repeating myself.
Fiat currencies go up and down. That's how they work. It's gold stand thinking to assume tanking the pound or the dollar etc.
(As an aside China is killing it because it literally understands how to spend its own money. You seen their infrastructure projects? - their climate programmes? Literally miles ahead.)
USA went on a huge stimulus programme towards to the end of COVID. What happend? It got astonishing growth and the dollar strengthened. It didn't tank.
Given the UK can and does create pounds and China wants UK pounds to save - we can and do import all we want from China. In return they give up real resources.
Get used to it - the UK government issues money every single day to pay for itself. It's on your damn bank note.
There is zero evidence what you are saying because you are making stuff up.
The time to replace him would be 2027ish so you can blame most of it on him but still have time to start putting policies in place.
Well yes possibly, in the same way that the best chance for the Tories is to install a new leader about 6 months before the next general election, the timing of which is fairly easy to predict because Labour will almost certainly not go early and they won't be able to hang on beyond July 2029
But I wasn't suggesting the best time to replace Starmer, I was saying that I would be surprised if he was still PM in six months time. Because I think that the leadership crisis has now become so severe that he has no chance of recovering from it, it's reached the tipping point imo.
I suppose there is a possibility that he trundles along for another six months until the inevitable finally occurs but what would be the point? Replacing Starmer before the local elections might minimise the damage that will occur if he hangs on because he is personally so unpopular with voters. What would be the point of waiting until after a local election catastrophe?
Obviously we are back to the question of who would replace him which is pretty much Starmer's Trump card, there isn't anyone obvious
Btw I will also be surprised if there is only one Labour leadership change between now and the next general election. I have no confidence that whoever takes over from Starmer will be able to turn round the fortunes of the Labour Party, Starmer claims to have changed the DNA of the Labour Party and on that point I actually agree with him (or at least Morgan McSweeney has) so I don't believe that today's Labour Party has the capability to make the radical changes which are needed. It is stuck in an ideological dead end.
Given the discussion around debt/mmt etc then this short 18min video may be interesting
Too late to edit but after examining the channel above I’m afraid its been generated/scripted with the use of A.I so burn with fire