Sir! Keir! Starmer!

He also has to go easy on net migration as a few of his milestones rely on it. Where are all the builders, where are all the additional NHS staff, come to think of it where are all the extra policeman. Guessing that people in UK who want to be builders, work in NHS or join the police are already doing that.

Of course what he could have done is explain that we need the migrants to do the jobs to achieve his milestones. They will be taxed, services will be increased to minimise the impact the additional people of housing, schools, NHS etc,

Well Starmer has answered that question ;

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-net-migration-falls-year-june-2024-11-28/

Although Daz suggests that it will be unaffordable, or at least Rachel Reeves will claim that it is, and bringing in skilled professionals whose training has been met by foreign governments will continue to be the preferred choice.

The Guardian headlines with the economy unexpectedly shrinking by -0.1% in October.  According to ONS.

Well it’s not really unexpected.

Because Labour have it back to front. On the back of years of Tory ruin – instead of coming into the situation with a big investment plan to hit the ground running Labour decided to actually help shrink the economy with the removal of money via taxation (which has yet to bite btw.)

Labour have spent time with BlackRock and Reeves with Jamie Dimon looking for advice on how to run an economy.

Their plan? To wait for growth to appear.

Now there maybe a bump or two up and down with some spending, but medium-long term things are grim as hell when it comes to growth.

It really was simple maths in reality – take that big bank of theirs and use it to invest in society, fix the stuff that is desperate – and the growth will absolutely follow. Because government spending has to come before growth and taxation follows that. But what did they do? These fiscal idiots ignored the 2 child cap, took forward money out of pensioners pockets and tested some fancy clothes out.  (And yes yes it may affect some well off pensioners but that’s a distraction – as it was an unnecessary part of the fiscal landscape, sent out all the wrong signals and still removes money from the economy. )

If their ever was a plan for government – that really shouldn’t have been it

Next year I’m guessing the the stock market will continue to do well, as will crypto. Because the BoE are handing out money via interest income to people with plenty of money.  (I do think the rug will pull on that somewhere in 2025, especially with the Trump tariffs in play but that’s another story. There is a big bubble incoming at some point. )

How can this be fair?

Money for interest comes from the exact same account the government spends from – the consolidated fund at the BoE. But apparently there’s a big black hole which means we can’t spend anything, despite masses of interest income leaking from the BoE.

We are living in the upside down where Labour are doing a whole load of nothing to economically to fix huge problems that they could fix or begin to.

Meanwhile Reform are calling for water nationalisation of Thames.

But the grown-ups are back in charge and James O’Brien and Ian Dunt (king of bad calls) are bed wetting over PMQ performances.

This feels like the biggest waste of political and economic opportunity I’ve ever witnessed.

This feels like the biggest waste of political and economic opportunity I’ve ever witnessed.

Except your plan would be declared “Communist” by 90% of the UK media…

Because Labour have it back to front. On the back of years of Tory ruin – instead of coming into the situation with a big investment plan to hit the ground running Labour decided to actually help shrink the economy with the removal of money via taxation (which has yet to bite btw.)

The additional taxation was only announced at the end of the month where the economy actually shrunk, so it’s got FA to do with the 0.1% shrinking – that was already going to happen.

Except your plan would be declared “Communist” by 90% of the UK media…

I thought the government’s entire economic policies were based on the much vaunted determination to make “unpopular decisions”?

Who cares if 90% of the UK media accuses Starmer of being a communist…..he has a huge landslide majority and the next general election is more than 4 years away.

Or are we now saying that it is only important to make unpopular right-wing decisions but definitely not unpopular left-wing decisions?

Do we need to ask the Daily Mail which unpopular decisions they approve of?

The additional taxation was only announced at the end of the month where the economy actually shrunk, so it’s got FA to do with the 0.1% shrinking – that was already going to happen.

I think that’s Rone’s point; Rachel Reeves bet that economic growth would outperform the OBR’s forecast over the next few years and tailored the budget to that

The problem is that growth isn’t happening and you can read OBR projections on future effects of continued instability in the Middle East, for example, https://obr.uk/box/economic-implications-of-further-instability-in-the-middle-east/

The Middle East hasn’t shown any signs of stability for twelve months now and I don’t know why she’d imagine that growth was likely

I think that’s Rone’s point; Rachel Reeves bet that economic growth would outperform the OBR’s forecast over the next few years and tailored the budget to that

And you missed my point, the 0.1% reductions are for September & October – this was BEFORE the budget announcement, and certainly before any implementation of the budget.

the 0.1% reductions are for September & October – this was BEFORE the budget announcement

Well yes, exactly. When you keep banging on about how bad things are and how tough the budget will be, BEFORE the budget announcement, small wonder that business and consumer confidence takes a hammering and people don’t want to neither invest nor spend.

“Critics blame the government, accusing Sir Keir Starmer and his chancellor Rachel Reeves of a spectacular, early, own goal that spooked the public and businesses alike.”

“After three weeks in office, both warned of a “tough” budget to come on 30 October due to an inherited “£22bn black hole” in the public finances that a snap Treasury review had uncovered.”

https://news.sky.com/story/economy-in-shock-decline-during-october-13272524

And you missed my point, the 0.1% reductions are for September & October – this was BEFORE the budget announcement, and certainly before any implementation of the budget.

The OBR projection example (linked^^) was from March, BEFORE the election. Rachel Reeves has ignored world events and their effect on UK economic growth, which is connected to world events more than many other big economies.

She then ignored world events for another six months and bet on UK growth being better than forecast; “the 0.1% reductions (are) for September & October” aren’t a shock, they were inevitable and the slide in growth will continue because of her budget

Coincidentally, we’ve seen talk of economic “black holes” before https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63573989 All that they do is lead politicians into poor choices, like austerity and tax rises

Keir Starmer is ‘the worst Prime Minister in modern history,’ according to Brits

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/keir-starmer-is-the-worst-prime-minister-in-modern-history-according-to-brits/ar-AA1vZPgd

Sir Keir Starmer is the worst Prime Minister in modern history, according to voters. A huge six in 10 say they are “dissatisfied” with his record, including more than a third of Labour supporters, after five months in the job.

That’s really quite something when you consider that Rishi Sunak, Boris Johnson, and Teresa May, are all also on the list.

Worth noting that question wasn’t “is Kier Starmer the worst Prime Minister in modern history”, or “who is the worst Prime Minister in modern history”… it was a standard question on “satisfaction”.  Clickbait nonsense headline for a piece generated by scraping stories from other media outlets.

If “Sir Keir Starmer” was replaced with “Rishi Sunak” or “Boris Johnson” I have very little doubt that the validity of the claim would not be doubted, or that there would be any talk of “clickbait nonsense headline”. Funny that.

There is overwhelming evidence that Keir Starmer is deeply unpopular with voters, including a substantial amount of Labour voters, poll after poll makes that clear.

This is translated into support for the Labour Party which all the polls of the last couple of months show is hovering at about 26%, I can’t remember the last time Labour enjoyed so little support among voters.

But some people want to blissfully delude themselves as much as the Tories did during the time of the last government.

So it’s not true Kelvin, Starmer is much more popular than all the polls suggest? 🙂

There is another poll that’s just come out which claims that Labour voters think that Starmer is a worse PM than Thatcher, and they didn’t rate Thatcher very high!

Raising taxes makes you unpopular shocker

This is what Starmer is up against.

Much as I want to be positive I don’t think he stands a chance. Its not about intellect, its not about a positive vision or milestones or metro mayors or anything that might actually bear fruit in X number of years time. Its about billions of dollars and a concerted desire to rule the world and shape it in an image of some awful gigantic bastardised version of a gated community – basically they have watched the film Elysium and thought yeah we can do that but on Earth. The billionaires are playing with useful idiots like Farage who have political traction and for the likes of Candy they are offering a seat at the big boys table – you’ve proved your entry level qualifications by scamming that first billion……now show us how loyal you really are.

In a world like this how will the old school politics of the decent ever shine through?

Worth noting that question wasn’t “is Kier Starmer the worst Prime Minister in modern history”, or “who is the worst Prime Minister in modern history”

No competent polling organisation would ask such a question as they would produce statistically useless results.  On the other hand measuring net satisfaction where you have a time series of results using the similar methodology to compare the results to is a perfectly sound evaluation technique.

Only if you equate popularity with best and vice versa

perfectly sound evaluation technique

Of course it is. A perfectly sound poll. The “headline” of that bit of cut and paste “journalism” doesn’t match it though, does it.

This is what Starmer is up against.

If only he had a sweeping majority, so he could pass legislation to prevent oligarchs interfering in the democratic process.

If only he had a sweeping majority, so he could pass legislation to prevent oligarchs interfering in the democratic process.

He’s too busy trying to piss off every other group of people in the country to bother with pissing off the billionaires as well. The WASPI women are just the latest to fall victim to Reeves’ ideological purity about keeping the city and bond traders happy. Who needs Farage in power when they have Starmer and Reeves doing all their dirty work for them?

And meanwhile inflation is up again while growth continues to go down. Stagflation is here to stay by the looks of it. I said on the other thread that Reeves would be gone by the time of the next budget. I think that’s optimistic, keep this up and she’ll be gone by the spring/summer. Starmer may not be far behind her if the polls continue to tank.

he WASPI women are just the latest to fall victim to Reeves’ ideological purity about keeping the city and bond traders happy. 

You’d prefer to spend £10bn to cover the <10% who weren’t paying attention?

#MagicMoneyTree

I think that’s optimistic, keep this up and she’ll be gone by the spring/summer. Starmer may not be far behind her if the polls continue to tank.

Could have been a plan all along. Get the ‘grown ups’ to get Labour into power, see how useless the ‘grown ups’ actually are and replace them with people who are a bit more progressive.

The WASPI women are just the latest to fall victim to Reeves’ ideological purity

Oh behave, even the ombudsman concluded that no-one has lost any money. The compensation was for the fact that a lack of information may have meant that some women might have made different decisions. I don’t think its justifiable to give people money on that basis.

I don’t think its justifiable to give people money on that basis.

Maybe not. But Starmer hasn’t refused to give them compensation because he disagrees with their cause*, but because the country ‘can’t afford it’. it’s total bullshit and once again peddling the false narrative of austerity.

*Given the number of times he and other labour MPs have been photographed with WASPI campaigners it very much look like he does agree with their cause.

but because the country ‘can’t afford it’

Which he clearly believes because if he didn’t what would have been easier than paying out compensation to the WASPI women and balming the Tories.

Kemi Badanochs attack on him at PMQ’s was just bizarre

Basically ‘it’s a terrible decision but it’s exactly what we’d have done’

Doesnt the whole thing just amount to the usual though? Boomers moaning that the moon on a stick they’ve been given isn’t the one they wanted?

Which he clearly believes

Without doubt. His ideological commitment to what is affordable is as strong as any Tory’s.

The Tories too made “difficult decisions” based on what they claimed the country could afford.

Starmer and his cabinet see the economic issues exactly as the Tories did. They just claim to be more prudent than the Tories.

 but because the country ‘can’t afford it’. it’s total bullshit and once again peddling the false narrative of austerity.

They haven’t said they can’t afford it, they said they’d rather spend money on other things. And in the grand scheme of things, I think they’re right. I don’t think we should be handing money to Boomers, who’s argument boils down to “Becasue we just assumed we’d be OK, we weren’t paying attention to the changes the govt at the time made” Meantime the rest of us won’t ever be handed everything on a plate, and these folks still think they should get the hand-outs.

Boomers, being entitled, who’d have thought it?

They haven’t said they can’t afford it, they said they’d rather spend money on other things

*pedant alert*

*pedant alert”

Sure enough, but here’s the thing, if Starmer said to the WASPI campaign, we could give this money to you, or we could invest it in your grandkids. I wonder what the response would be.

They haven’t said they can’t afford it

Direct quote from Starmer at PMQs:

“I just set out the factual background and the percentage that knew about the change, and the simple fact of the matter is, in the current economic circumstances, the taxpayer can’t bear the burden of tens of billions of pounds in compensation.”

I think that’s pretty obviously clear to everyone who reads or hears it. It’s also pretty obvious to everyone that Starmer and the Labour govt are not people of their word. At a time when the govt has come under huge pressure about not sticking to it’s manifesto pledges this seems like another own goal, all done at the altar of tory austerity.

I think that’s pretty obviously clear to everyone who reads or hears it.

Exactly; although the money could be found to pay them, it shouldn’t be used for this.

Clear as day.

although the money could be found to pay them, it shouldn’t be used for this.

It doesn’t say that at all and no one hearing that will take that interpretation. “We can’t afford it” means exactly that. If he meant there were higher priorities for govt spending then he should have said that, but he didn’t. All people will hear is “we have no money”, and their takeaway will be that there is no point in Starmer and his govt, because that’s what he was elected to fix. They’d be right too.

all done at the altar of tory austerity

So, the alternative to Austerity is Investment.

You can use the money to invest in long term infrastructure or programmes that aim to promote growth. Or you could give money to the teeny group of women wealthy enough to think that had they been actually paying attention they’d have maybe invested differently in the gap between stopping work and claiming a pension, an that money will disappear into that demographic’s asset portfolio.

I know which one I’d rather the govt did, and it isn’t giving money to make this demographic a little bit more wealthy still

EDIT: In many ways Starmer’s right, we can’t afford to continue to give money to this generation supported by the rest us, they’re aren’t enough of the ‘rest of us’ anymore. We need to stop handing the boomers everything on a plate and start giving the kids a bit of a leg up instead.

I know which one I’d rather the govt did, and it isn’t giving money to make this demographic a little bit more wealthy still

Don’t particlularly disagree. Boomer pensioners are somewhere near the bottom of the list of priorities if you ask me. I just can’t quite believe the pigs ear they’ve made of the comms.

I just can’t quite believe the pigs ear they’ve made of the comms.

Seems to be their modus operandi, no?

Kemi Badanochs attack on him at PMQ’s was just bizarre

Basically ‘it’s a terrible decision but it’s exactly what we’d have done’

Surely that is exactly what Starmer did when he was leader of the opposition…..he constantly attacked the government but then claimed that unfortunately Labour would have to do the same.

The latest development…..

Up to 100 Labour MPs could vote against Waspi payout refusal

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/18/up-to-100-labour-mps-could-vote-against-waspi-payout-refusal

So to sum up, instead of the promised growth the UK economy is now shrinking, inflation is now at its highest level since the start of the year, voters don’t like Starmer, and now up to a hundred Labour MPs might rebel against the government.

It’s not been a good first six months for Starmer. It turns out that that being prime minister might not be quite as easy as it first appears. And to bugger things up Starmer can’t use the excuse of not having a huge working majority.

Starmer’s meteoric political rise in a relatively short time has relied heavily on extraordinarily good luck, accumulating in a huge majority from a remarkably small share of the vote. However it would appear that his luck might have finally run out. Although it’s obviously not him who will pay the price – I am sure that post politics Starmer’s career will be as lucrative as Nick Clegg’s.

So to sum up, instead of the promised growth the UK economy is now shrinking, inflation is now at its highest level since the start of the year, voters don’t like Starmer,

Only Starmer and Co didn’t seem to notice they were sowing the seeds of their own failure.

I think the economy stuff was clearly going to happen. They simply don’t understand what they’re doing. And are moving in the opposite direction of growth. I.e to remove money through taxation = less money in the economy.

That’s yet to hit.

It was always obvious inflation would tick up again – I pointed this out a while back. That said the drive for 2% inflation (cpi)  is nonsense and allowing the BoE to keep paying a basic income to people with wealth – whilst proving the point they must crush demand at the lower end. They absolutely want to vindicate their position.

The bit that Labour are in an absolute mess over are their fiscal plans. They’ve done nothing to prepare us for winter.

(On top of that whilst I don’t have a huge axe to grind over the Waspi thing – seeing pictures of the cabinet from a while back supporting them now looks ridiculous and disingenuous. The fact they can’t afford it though is as usual total fiction. They just don’t want to be seen paying this out.)

All that said let’s remember it’s not necessarily always about who they give money to – but spending money is a  contribution to the economy at every level.  They want growth so they have to add more money then they tax away – it’s as simple as that.

It really is the government’s job to create economic conditions the fix the foundations. It is within their control and currently the BoE is definitely not on the same page.

If you want a lesson in anti-MMT self defeating rhetoric – you absolutely must keep an eye on Trump and Musk, they are going to move in the opposite direction.  They are back to old fashioned American thinking that they need to shrink the state. Musk hasn’t a clue above government money – he thinks the tax payer is the source of money. Just think that through for one minute – the tax payer creates money to give to the government. Even though the Fed have their name attached to every dollar.  Middle America is lapping it up this insane logic.

(I’ve got to say on a personal level my business has just about ground to a halt with demand. No one is spending in my line of work currently – not totally unusual but it’s worse than I can remember.)

Don’t particlularly disagree. Boomer pensioners are somewhere near the bottom of the list of priorities if you ask me. I just can’t quite believe the pigs ear they’ve made of the comms.

I’m not sure there would have been a good way to manage the comms on this.  Well, unless you went back three years and told every MP to not stand quite so close to WASPIs in photos.

To be fair, they never said they were going to pay compensation.  Also, I don’t think they should be paying compensation.

This is more a result of the same phenomena we saw on here often enough during the election where Labour never actually said they were going to do anything but lots of people thought they were getting secret signals from Starmer that he was going to do the right thing once in power.

Unfortunately lots of people thought they were getting secret signals and are now realising secret signals aren’t the same as a manifesto commitment.

Also, if we are going to start compensating people for poor decision making due to not paying attention, I have a few personal suggestions on things I’d like the government to compensate me for…

Unfortunately lots of people thought they were getting secret signals and are now realising secret signals aren’t the same as a manifesto commitment.

It think it’s more basic than that – Starmer doesn’t do much of anything he pledges ahead of time.

Manifesto or not.

No **** believes him.

Whereas Rachel Reeves definitely makes no secret of her intentions.  Wrong but on point.

It’s all just a huge wasted opportunity with decidedly deserving economic fallout from awful decisions.