This evening’s local accuweather forecast: Heavy rain and strong winds from hurricane; life-threatening flooding, mudslides, debris flows and power outages. Rainfall over next 24 hrs could reach 18 inches.
I assume you are referring to your current location (USA) not the Isle of White?
I am, although my home town has had three severe weather warnings already this month.
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
The only minister to have made much impact already is Ed Miliband but I doubt he will be chosen twice. We are still at the ‘round up the usual suspects’ stage of leadership speculation.
FWIW I think that there are some underlying trends in the US and elsewhere that are helping Trump in this election.
Although they are growing now real wages were severely damaged both by the sequelae of Covid and the inflationary bubble that followed the invasion of Ukraine. People do not feel better off than they did 4 years ago. Many aren't.
We had got very used to notional interest rates. Their replacement with more "normal" rates has hurt a lot of people who were somewhat ambitious on their borrowing.
Public services seem to struggle to maintain even the same level of service for those in need.
Harris gets boosts against that trend but ultimately the trend reasserts itself and things narrow again. So we saw a boost when the Democrats decided that the walking dead was a better TV program than an electoral strategy and she took over.
We saw another boost when Trump doubled down on his stupidity by choosing Vance and having a pretty dismal Convention where we warbled on and on until people lost track of what he was talking about.
She get another boost with her Convention and celebrity endorsements.
She did well in her first sit down interview (there haven't been many more).
She absolutely slaughtered Trump in the debate.
Hopefully Walz will do the same to Vance on Tuesday.
But each time those underlying trends come back. We are seeing this in the Pennsylvanian polling and elsewhere. Its bloody tough to win as an incumbent right now. We have seen that throughout the Western World. Harris needs to keep rolling back the tide. I am nervous she may run out of opportunities to do so.
Take a look at Harris' latest MSNBC interview. Even MSNBC is saying she dodged the questions.
She is a fundamentally poor candidate.
Agree re the trends helping Trump. Look at the Gallup polling on which party is best trusted to sort voters' priorities.
Yes, the trend does help Trump and she is a poor candidate. She was not tested at all prior to getting the nomination. Just a coronation.
She is lucky she is up against the Trumpdozer.
I think HYUFD is correct. If she was up against Haley she'd be toast.
Without the coronation she wouldn’t have been in with a chance (nor, probably, would any other Dem who’s emerged successfully from it). For once the Dems handled the run up just right.
Unfortunately for Downing Street, exactly 37 minutes after their line was published Guido went to pixel with evidence that Starmer paid tribute to the Queen on the day of her death from the very same ‘one-off’ penthouse. Gone were the family photos – replaced with some dark urns and books including an Obama biography…
This is going to become untenable for Keir Starmer. The revelations about Lord Alli’s apartment have only just started…
Which implies Guido can have as many examples as there have been broadcasts, but also that they do not add up to very much.
There’s two things that might be of relevance to the story. One is his compliance with Covid restrictions, and the other is that the cost of his use of the apartment was properly recorded to the appropriate authorities.
From the Telegraph piece, it almost certainly did comply with the Covid rules at the time of recording, if not the time of broadcast. The use of the flat for recording speeches would be an expense or donation to the Labour Party and not Starmer personally.
You can put up a false background of course. When I am on Teams at work, I have a background with the company logo.
I just don,t switch on the camera
Same here. When I am WFH no one wants to see me in my undies.
When you’re in the office they’re just too polite to say anything?
Few trust Starmer even fewer will trust Reeves as she is about as truthful.as Boris.
She's going to change the rules and borrow billions
I hope so! As long as it is invested with a future return in excess of the interest on it, and not simply spent.
Although... there's no need to increase borrowing.
Just raise tax take as a %GDP to the same level as those failed economic basket cases like Norway, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, etc. and, hey presto, there's another £330bn to invest, wipe out the deficit and start paying down debt.
It's so obvious I cannot see any government doesn't do it.
How do you raise taxes without discouraging whatever you're taxing? Tax high earners - high earners move abroad. Tax income - people work less. Tax companies - companies go elsewhere or do less. Tax consumption - consumption reduces. And so on. And as a result you collect less tax. We could change our economic model of course so we are more dependent on producing stuff, which tends to be less mobile. But that's very hard to do.
JD Vance's favorability likened to 'herpes' in brutal poll analysis
https://www.rawstory.com/jd-vance-popularity/ ..."The guy who says the Holocaust was overblown and Hitler was great, who wants to own slaves, who was a frequenter of backroom porn video booths, and who bragged about banging his wife’s sister . . . That guy was able to get to 27 percent favorable with women in North Carolina," wrote Last.
"But JD Vance is stuck at 18 percent among people who are basically his same age."..
The Tories really do need to think about how they managed to lose to this mob. How they managed to be even worse, and make them look superficially attractive to many.
14 years in government. We're not a one party state.
I don't recall the same sense of ineptitude about any government in the first few months of the time in office. Apart, perhaps, from Johnson's in 2019.
TBF there was Fizzy Lizzy's first 1.5 months, and Rishi Sunak's entire term spent on political efforts to backside cover for the Election, and any difficult decision, even the most basic stuff, being pushed out into 2025.
I'm nto sure about Gordon Brown in detail, but then we are back into the 1970s and Ted Heath etc.
. I would say Sir Keir who stopped the most disgusting racist riots in my lifetime- overnight - and Theresa May are by a distance the best PMs we've had since Tony Blair.
Come on, that's a bit January 6th precious isn't it? From what I can gather there was a few dozen marches which were peaceful enough, though I would imagine could feel a bit intimidating, and then three, maybe four even when it got out of hand, and even then it was tiny numbers. Those idiots who set fire to the bins outside a hostel, the one in sunderland high street, and maybe another hotel one.
And that was it. If you think this disorder was the worst in your life, you have probably lived the most cossetted and peaceful existence in the history of all humanity.
I never understand why people make things out more than they are. The disturbances that happened in Leeds a few days earlier were not far off as bad.
I count 26 events at which there was violence. Over 1000 people have been arrested. Over 130 police officers were injured. There were many objects thrown at the police, cars set alight, windows smashed, shops looted, buildings set on fire (not just bins next to a building) and petrol bombs used. Why are you turning a blind eye to what happened?
Few trust Starmer even fewer will trust Reeves as she is about as truthful.as Boris.
She's going to change the rules and borrow billions
I hope so! As long as it is invested with a future return in excess of the interest on it, and not simply spent.
Although... there's no need to increase borrowing.
Just raise tax take as a %GDP to the same level as those failed economic basket cases like Norway, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, etc. and, hey presto, there's another £330bn to invest, wipe out the deficit and start paying down debt.
It's so obvious I cannot see any government doesn't do it.
On a very quick salary calculator someone on the equiv of £35k in Norway would need to pay a over £2k extra in income tax with VAT at 25% on almost everything with a reduced 15% for some foods.
Go ahead and knock on some doors and see what the feedback is.
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
SKS is slightly smeared but that will disappear over time once Parliament is back and we see policies & laws being implemented.
And there is zero ways of removing a Labour party leader while in power - it took Blair getting feed up before Brown became leader...
I think I need to change my avatar in light of recent events
Can I suggest “Not a charmer. Keir Starmer.”
Do you remember "Starmer the Llama harmer" ?
“Look, I needed a place to store the llama, and my friend offered his apartment in Covent Garden. It was all properly declared and above board. No money changed hands.”
FWIW I think that there are some underlying trends in the US and elsewhere that are helping Trump in this election.
Although they are growing now real wages were severely damaged both by the sequelae of Covid and the inflationary bubble that followed the invasion of Ukraine. People do not feel better off than they did 4 years ago. Many aren't.
We had got very used to notional interest rates. Their replacement with more "normal" rates has hurt a lot of people who were somewhat ambitious on their borrowing.
Public services seem to struggle to maintain even the same level of service for those in need.
Harris gets boosts against that trend but ultimately the trend reasserts itself and things narrow again. So we saw a boost when the Democrats decided that the walking dead was a better TV program than an electoral strategy and she took over.
We saw another boost when Trump doubled down on his stupidity by choosing Vance and having a pretty dismal Convention where we warbled on and on until people lost track of what he was talking about.
She get another boost with her Convention and celebrity endorsements.
She did well in her first sit down interview (there haven't been many more).
She absolutely slaughtered Trump in the debate.
Hopefully Walz will do the same to Vance on Tuesday.
But each time those underlying trends come back. We are seeing this in the Pennsylvanian polling and elsewhere. Its bloody tough to win as an incumbent right now. We have seen that throughout the Western World. Harris needs to keep rolling back the tide. I am nervous she may run out of opportunities to do so.
Take a look at Harris' latest MSNBC interview. Even MSNBC is saying she dodged the questions.
She is a fundamentally poor candidate.
Agree re the trends helping Trump. Look at the Gallup polling on which party is best trusted to sort voters' priorities.
The Tories really do need to think about how they managed to lose to this mob. How they managed to be even worse, and make them look superficially attractive to many.
14 years in government. We're not a one party state.
I don't recall the same sense of ineptitude about any government in the first few months of the time in office. Apart, perhaps, from Johnson's in 2019.
TBF there was Fizzy Lizzy's first 1.5 months, and Rishi Sunak's entire term spent on political efforts to backside cover for the Election, and any difficult decision, even the most basic stuff, being pushed out into 2025.
I'm nto sure about Gordon Brown in detail, but then we are back into the 1970s and Ted Heath etc.
...And the piece de resistance BREXIT! Perhaps the most egregious costly and foolhardy of the lot! In fact looking back to the Johnson fiascos- not including Lulu Little -which I had no problem with onto his disastrous implementation of Brexit Owen Patterson Barnard Castle losing his Remain MPs it was surely the worst governance we've ever seen.
Then Liz Truss (enough said) and then Rishi who employed Suella Braverman as HS (again enough said)
I would say Sir Keir who stopped the most disgusting racist riots in my lifetime- overnight - and Theresa May are by a distance the best PMs we've had since Tony Blair.
For once I very much agree with you: Starmer is every bit as impressive a PM as Theresa May was.
All these problems facing Labour are utterly unforced, and of their own making.
How will they react when real events come and bash them in the face?
Got to agree there - Sue Gray may be solving issues on the civil service / delivery side of things.
But their need someone to quickly get control of the media / presentation side of things because it's running away from them...
I'm not sure that one person can dictate their way to a reform of the Civil Service. They are more likely to generate a tidal wave of hostility in the system. Which is what we have seen.
You need a broader and deeper change.
Hmm. If only somebody had written an article about the reasons for the Blob and what is necessary to tackle it...
Few trust Starmer even fewer will trust Reeves as she is about as truthful.as Boris.
She's going to change the rules and borrow billions
I hope so! As long as it is invested with a future return in excess of the interest on it, and not simply spent.
Although... there's no need to increase borrowing.
Just raise tax take as a %GDP to the same level as those failed economic basket cases like Norway, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, etc. and, hey presto, there's another £330bn to invest, wipe out the deficit and start paying down debt.
It's so obvious I cannot see any government doesn't do it.
On a very quick salary calculator someone on the equiv of £35k in Norway would need to pay a over £2k extra in income tax with VAT at 25% on almost everything with a reduced 15% for some foods.
Go ahead and knock on some doors and see what the feedback is.
No. There are plenty of other ways to raise the taxes without touching Income Tax. E.g.
- Tax unearned income at the same combined rate of NI + ICT as earned income attracts. - Increase IHT and remove some/all of the exemptions. - Increase CGT to match NI + ICT taxation rates. - Wealth tax. - Tax all British Citizens at UK rates. Ex-pat allowed to offset any local taxes they pay.
Some combination of these would work and probably allow the main ICT rate to be reduced.
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
I can't see Starmer going unwillingly, and think he will lead Labour into the next GE.
But that's not what you, as a Labour supporter, should be worried about. What you should worry about is why Starmer and Labour have made so many unforced mis-steps in the first few months of their time in power, and why their attempts to handle those mis-steps have been so terrible.
Why was Blair so different in 1997? I'd argue that it was because he had a solid team behind him, all shooting in the same direction. As much as I dislike Alastair Campbell, Starmer really needs someone like him. Also, I think Starmer is missing a Brown-style heavyweight and a Prescott to talk to the left of the party.
I also think Starmer isn't particularly good at politics.
Labour MP took £1.2m loan from Lord Alli to buy house for her sister
Siobhain McDonagh says peer was ‘best friends’ with terminally ill sibling Margaret, Labour’s first female general secretary
A Labour MP accepted a £1.2 million loan from Lord Alli to buy a house.
Siobhain McDonagh, the MP for Mitcham and Morden, said the Labour peer helped her buy the house for her terminally ill sister Baroness McDonagh, Labour’s first female general secretary, who was the donor’s “best friend” for 25 years.
Described as a “tour de force” for the party, the peer was credited with helping Labour achieve its landslide election victory in 1997.
She was diagnosed with a brain tumour after suffering from a series of fits in November 2021 and died last year.
Ms McDonagh said that Lord Alli wanted “nothing other” than for her sister to be comfortable in the last months of her life….
… She added: “The loan will be repaid on gaining probate on Margaret’s Estate. It has been properly registered and Waheed wanted nothing other than his best friend being comfortable in the last months of her life.
That's a repeat of a story from last week - were a politican not involved would it be news - it's just a rich person helping their friend out.
Heck the only bit of news is that the rich person actually helped them out.
But it is a politician - and indeed, a politician gifting a substantial amount to another politician's relative.
Now, on the one hand, this is all being made public, and as such the public can judge the appropriateness of what's gone on - which is as it should be. However, Lord Alli does look to have financial dealings with a lot of senior Labour figures, which is getting to the point (if not already beyond it), where it looks as if he's been seeking to buy a network and exercise influence without ever needing to make explicit his patronage (and, implicitly, the potential future loss of it). Even if it's all innocent and he is simply helping out friends and colleagues, the impression of buying influence - bolstered by the reality of the No 10 pass - is unmistakable.
I think calls to ban all gifts and donations, including in kind, to politicians go much too far. We need MPs to be normal people and to be able to do the sorts of things normal people do. For example, if a friend offers to put up all invitees to his birthday bash for free, then the MP shouldn't be the only one to have to pay for themselves - but they should have to declare that hospitality and opt out of decisions that might be influenced by the freebie. Indeed, the pressing need for reform is to deal with conflicts of interest more effectively, including banning MPs and peers from voting or taking decisions where the interest is close enough (as councillors are so banned).
The problem that Labour has is that an MP should not be receiving hospitality in ways that employees are barred from following the Bribery Act 2010 (which MPs seem to be exempt from).
MPs are not employees.
I agree with your principle though, and barring MPs from speaking, voting or making decisions on matters related to anything where they've received anything more than token benefits (other than in a legitimate part of their MP's, minister's or equivalent role) would go a long way towards resolving the problem.
Few trust Starmer even fewer will trust Reeves as she is about as truthful.as Boris.
She's going to change the rules and borrow billions
I hope so! As long as it is invested with a future return in excess of the interest on it, and not simply spent.
Although... there's no need to increase borrowing.
Just raise tax take as a %GDP to the same level as those failed economic basket cases like Norway, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, etc. and, hey presto, there's another £330bn to invest, wipe out the deficit and start paying down debt.
It's so obvious I cannot see any government doesn't do it.
How do you raise taxes without discouraging whatever you're taxing? Tax high earners - high earners move abroad. Tax income - people work less. Tax companies - companies go elsewhere or do less. Tax consumption - consumption reduces. And so on. And as a result you collect less tax. We could change our economic model of course so we are more dependent on producing stuff, which tends to be less mobile. But that's very hard to do.
So hard to do that Norway, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden etc. manage it.
See my other post for specific ideas.
Too many in this country are trapped in a narrow-thought box that says we must either borrow more or cut spending. There's an obvious and relatively simple answer.
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
I can't see Starmer going unwillingly, and think he will lead Labour into the next GE.
But that's not what you, as a Labour supporter, should be worried about. What you should worry about is why Starmer and Labour have made so many unforced mis-steps in the first few months of their time in power, and why their attempts to handle those mis-steps have been so terrible.
Why was Blair so different in 1997? I'd argue that it was because he had a solid team behind him, all shooting in the same direction. As much as I dislike Alastair Campbell, Starmer really needs someone like him. Also, I think Starmer is missing a Brown-style heavyweight and a Prescott to talk to the left of the party.
I also think Starmer isn't particularly good at politics.
Coming into government is difficult. Especially with a downward pointing plane.
Where’s the government that sailed into office and got off to a brilliant start?
Few trust Starmer even fewer will trust Reeves as she is about as truthful.as Boris.
She's going to change the rules and borrow billions
I hope so! As long as it is invested with a future return in excess of the interest on it, and not simply spent.
Although... there's no need to increase borrowing.
Just raise tax take as a %GDP to the same level as those failed economic basket cases like Norway, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, etc. and, hey presto, there's another £330bn to invest, wipe out the deficit and start paying down debt.
It's so obvious I cannot see any government doesn't do it.
On a very quick salary calculator someone on the equiv of £35k in Norway would need to pay a over £2k extra in income tax with VAT at 25% on almost everything with a reduced 15% for some foods.
Go ahead and knock on some doors and see what the feedback is.
No. There are plenty of other ways to raise the taxes without touching Income Tax. E.g.
- Tax unearned income at the same combined rate of NI + ICT as earned income attracts. - Increase IHT and remove some/all of the exemptions. - Increase CGT to match NI + ICT taxation rates. - Wealth tax. - Tax all British Citizens at UK rates. Ex-pat allowed to offset any local taxes they pay.
Some combination of these would work and probably allow the main ICT rate to be reduced.
You are the one who quoted Norway. I just went and checked. Your answer is "no no, we will raise taxes on things that wont impact you, dont worry it will be fine".
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
What? Apologies if it wasn't clear, but I meant to imply Starmer is going nowhere! My view is Alligate is damaging, but it isn't going to shift Starmer as leader - the Labour Party just don't tend to act like that.
EDIT: Thanks for considering me sane though. And also for bracketing me with DavidL!
This evening’s local accuweather forecast: Heavy rain and strong winds from hurricane; life-threatening flooding, mudslides, debris flows and power outages. Rainfall over next 24 hrs could reach 18 inches.
I blame Starmer.
Unintended consequence of Prospero Starmer's calling up a tempest to control channel boat numbers?
Labour MP took £1.2m loan from Lord Alli to buy house for her sister
Siobhain McDonagh says peer was ‘best friends’ with terminally ill sibling Margaret, Labour’s first female general secretary
A Labour MP accepted a £1.2 million loan from Lord Alli to buy a house.
Siobhain McDonagh, the MP for Mitcham and Morden, said the Labour peer helped her buy the house for her terminally ill sister Baroness McDonagh, Labour’s first female general secretary, who was the donor’s “best friend” for 25 years.
Described as a “tour de force” for the party, the peer was credited with helping Labour achieve its landslide election victory in 1997.
She was diagnosed with a brain tumour after suffering from a series of fits in November 2021 and died last year.
Ms McDonagh said that Lord Alli wanted “nothing other” than for her sister to be comfortable in the last months of her life….
… She added: “The loan will be repaid on gaining probate on Margaret’s Estate. It has been properly registered and Waheed wanted nothing other than his best friend being comfortable in the last months of her life.
That's a repeat of a story from last week - were a politican not involved would it be news - it's just a rich person helping their friend out.
Heck the only bit of news is that the rich person actually helped them out.
But it is a politician - and indeed, a politician gifting a substantial amount to another politician's relative.
Now, on the one hand, this is all being made public, and as such the public can judge the appropriateness of what's gone on - which is as it should be. However, Lord Alli does look to have financial dealings with a lot of senior Labour figures, which is getting to the point (if not already beyond it), where it looks as if he's been seeking to buy a network and exercise influence without ever needing to make explicit his patronage (and, implicitly, the potential future loss of it). Even if it's all innocent and he is simply helping out friends and colleagues, the impression of buying influence - bolstered by the reality of the No 10 pass - is unmistakable.
I think calls to ban all gifts and donations, including in kind, to politicians go much too far. We need MPs to be normal people and to be able to do the sorts of things normal people do. For example, if a friend offers to put up all invitees to his birthday bash for free, then the MP shouldn't be the only one to have to pay for themselves - but they should have to declare that hospitality and opt out of decisions that might be influenced by the freebie. Indeed, the pressing need for reform is to deal with conflicts of interest more effectively, including banning MPs and peers from voting or taking decisions where the interest is close enough (as councillors are so banned).
The problem that Labour has is that an MP should not be receiving hospitality in ways that employees are barred from following the Bribery Act 2010 (which MPs seem to be exempt from).
MPs are not employees.
I agree with your principle though, and barring MPs from speaking, voting or making decisions on matters related to anything where they've received anything more than token benefits (other than in a legitimate part of their MP's, minister's or equivalent role) would go a long way towards resolving the problem.
The MPs should try sharing the rules they impose on British local government?
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
I can't see Starmer going unwillingly, and think he will lead Labour into the next GE.
But that's not what you, as a Labour supporter, should be worried about. What you should worry about is why Starmer and Labour have made so many unforced mis-steps in the first few months of their time in power, and why their attempts to handle those mis-steps have been so terrible.
Why was Blair so different in 1997? I'd argue that it was because he had a solid team behind him, all shooting in the same direction. As much as I dislike Alastair Campbell, Starmer really needs someone like him. Also, I think Starmer is missing a Brown-style heavyweight and a Prescott to talk to the left of the party.
I also think Starmer isn't particularly good at politics.
Coming into government is difficult. Especially with a downward pointing plane.
Where’s the government that sailed into office and got off to a brilliant start?
2010: Cameron and the Lib Dem coalition.
1997: aside from the mess with Ecclestone (which IMV was absolutely dodgy), they settled down fast and headed off in the direction they wanted.
Isn't there something just a bit icky about Starmer giving that address from a house that wasnt his, but dressed up to look like it was, when the address was about working from home and staying home? Guido on fire at the moment (just how he likes it).
FWIW I think that there are some underlying trends in the US and elsewhere that are helping Trump in this election.
Although they are growing now real wages were severely damaged both by the sequelae of Covid and the inflationary bubble that followed the invasion of Ukraine. People do not feel better off than they did 4 years ago. Many aren't.
We had got very used to notional interest rates. Their replacement with more "normal" rates has hurt a lot of people who were somewhat ambitious on their borrowing.
Public services seem to struggle to maintain even the same level of service for those in need.
Harris gets boosts against that trend but ultimately the trend reasserts itself and things narrow again. So we saw a boost when the Democrats decided that the walking dead was a better TV program than an electoral strategy and she took over.
We saw another boost when Trump doubled down on his stupidity by choosing Vance and having a pretty dismal Convention where we warbled on and on until people lost track of what he was talking about.
She get another boost with her Convention and celebrity endorsements.
She did well in her first sit down interview (there haven't been many more).
She absolutely slaughtered Trump in the debate.
Hopefully Walz will do the same to Vance on Tuesday.
But each time those underlying trends come back. We are seeing this in the Pennsylvanian polling and elsewhere. Its bloody tough to win as an incumbent right now. We have seen that throughout the Western World. Harris needs to keep rolling back the tide. I am nervous she may run out of opportunities to do so.
Take a look at Harris' latest MSNBC interview. Even MSNBC is saying she dodged the questions.
She is a fundamentally poor candidate.
Agree re the trends helping Trump. Look at the Gallup polling on which party is best trusted to sort voters' priorities.
Few trust Starmer even fewer will trust Reeves as she is about as truthful.as Boris.
She's going to change the rules and borrow billions
I hope so! As long as it is invested with a future return in excess of the interest on it, and not simply spent.
Although... there's no need to increase borrowing.
Just raise tax take as a %GDP to the same level as those failed economic basket cases like Norway, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, etc. and, hey presto, there's another £330bn to invest, wipe out the deficit and start paying down debt.
It's so obvious I cannot see any government doesn't do it.
How do you raise taxes without discouraging whatever you're taxing? Tax high earners - high earners move abroad. Tax income - people work less. Tax companies - companies go elsewhere or do less. Tax consumption - consumption reduces. And so on. And as a result you collect less tax. We could change our economic model of course so we are more dependent on producing stuff, which tends to be less mobile. But that's very hard to do.
So hard to do that Norway, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden etc. manage it.
See my other post for specific ideas.
Too many in this country are trapped in a narrow-thought box that says we must either borrow more or cut spending. There's an obvious and relatively simple answer.
I think I pay quite enough tax as it is.
"Make do" is my response to a government that wants more.
Obscure fact of the day: in two hundred years the population of the larger of the principal British Isles has more than quadrupled whereas the population of the lesser is unchanged.
Few trust Starmer even fewer will trust Reeves as she is about as truthful.as Boris.
She's going to change the rules and borrow billions
I hope so! As long as it is invested with a future return in excess of the interest on it, and not simply spent.
Although... there's no need to increase borrowing.
Just raise tax take as a %GDP to the same level as those failed economic basket cases like Norway, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, etc. and, hey presto, there's another £330bn to invest, wipe out the deficit and start paying down debt.
It's so obvious I cannot see any government doesn't do it.
How do you raise taxes without discouraging whatever you're taxing? Tax high earners - high earners move abroad. Tax income - people work less. Tax companies - companies go elsewhere or do less. Tax consumption - consumption reduces. And so on. And as a result you collect less tax. We could change our economic model of course so we are more dependent on producing stuff, which tends to be less mobile. But that's very hard to do.
So hard to do that Norway, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden etc. manage it.
See my other post for specific ideas.
Too many in this country are trapped in a narrow-thought box that says we must either borrow more or cut spending. There's an obvious and relatively simple answer.
Well I have some sympathy with that view - there is a fundamental honesty to it. And there is stuff I would gladly pay higher taxes for. But the difference between us and the examples you cite is that they generate their wealth in fundamentally different ways (in Norway's case by having a shit-tonne of oil). Now we could remodel our economy so we're more like them - but we're very much in an I-wouldn't-have-started-from-here situation, not least because a) we're neck-deep in debt, and b) capital is much, much more mobile than it was when they did it. And while Europe is rich, it's not exactly swimming in growth. It isn't exactly the model to follow for a country which, as I mentioned, is neck-deep in debt.
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
I can't see Starmer going unwillingly, and think he will lead Labour into the next GE.
But that's not what you, as a Labour supporter, should be worried about. What you should worry about is why Starmer and Labour have made so many unforced mis-steps in the first few months of their time in power, and why their attempts to handle those mis-steps have been so terrible.
Why was Blair so different in 1997? I'd argue that it was because he had a solid team behind him, all shooting in the same direction. As much as I dislike Alastair Campbell, Starmer really needs someone like him. Also, I think Starmer is missing a Brown-style heavyweight and a Prescott to talk to the left of the party.
I also think Starmer isn't particularly good at politics.
Coming into government is difficult. Especially with a downward pointing plane.
Where’s the government that sailed into office and got off to a brilliant start?
The media abhors a vacuum of news - so fills it with anything it can find - and then came a list of freebies received by members of the incoming Government...
Unfortunately for Downing Street, exactly 37 minutes after their line was published Guido went to pixel with evidence that Starmer paid tribute to the Queen on the day of her death from the very same ‘one-off’ penthouse. Gone were the family photos – replaced with some dark urns and books including an Obama biography…
This is going to become untenable for Keir Starmer. The revelations about Lord Alli’s apartment have only just started…
Which implies Guido can have as many examples as there have been broadcasts, but also that they do not add up to very much.
There’s two things that might be of relevance to the story. One is his compliance with Covid restrictions, and the other is that the cost of his use of the apartment was properly recorded to the appropriate authorities.
From the Telegraph piece, it almost certainly did comply with the Covid rules at the time of recording, if not the time of broadcast. The use of the flat for recording speeches would be an expense or donation to the Labour Party and not Starmer personally.
You can put up a false background of course. When I am on Teams at work, I have a background with the company logo.
I just don,t switch on the camera
Same here. When I am WFH no one wants to see me in my undies.
When you’re in the office they’re just too polite to say anything?
I used to have dreams, which I did remember, of being in the office in a meeting but sitting there either nude or in my undies and it felt odd as no one said anything and I only realised half way through the meeting !!
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
I can't see Starmer going unwillingly, and think he will lead Labour into the next GE.
But that's not what you, as a Labour supporter, should be worried about. What you should worry about is why Starmer and Labour have made so many unforced mis-steps in the first few months of their time in power, and why their attempts to handle those mis-steps have been so terrible.
Why was Blair so different in 1997? I'd argue that it was because he had a solid team behind him, all shooting in the same direction. As much as I dislike Alastair Campbell, Starmer really needs someone like him. Also, I think Starmer is missing a Brown-style heavyweight and a Prescott to talk to the left of the party.
I also think Starmer isn't particularly good at politics.
Coming into government is difficult. Especially with a downward pointing plane.
Where’s the government that sailed into office and got off to a brilliant start?
2010: Cameron and the Lib Dem coalition.
1997: aside from the mess with Ecclestone (which IMV was absolutely dodgy), they settled down fast and headed off in the direction they wanted.
Yes, in terms of the internal workings, the coalition is probably a rare - possibly the only - relatively recent example. The advantage of a deliberative process where those involved started by having to sit down and work out what they were going to do? And strengthened by the cross-party machinery that meant that everything got more fully considered and dumb ideas got knocked on the head.
Early Blair seemed decent at the time, but with hindsight the missed opportunities and failings that came back to haunt them appear in sharper resolution.
Attlee in 1945 got an impressive amount delivered in their early years, even though politically they were quickly in trouble.
FWIW I think that there are some underlying trends in the US and elsewhere that are helping Trump in this election.
Although they are growing now real wages were severely damaged both by the sequelae of Covid and the inflationary bubble that followed the invasion of Ukraine. People do not feel better off than they did 4 years ago. Many aren't.
We had got very used to notional interest rates. Their replacement with more "normal" rates has hurt a lot of people who were somewhat ambitious on their borrowing.
Public services seem to struggle to maintain even the same level of service for those in need.
Harris gets boosts against that trend but ultimately the trend reasserts itself and things narrow again. So we saw a boost when the Democrats decided that the walking dead was a better TV program than an electoral strategy and she took over.
We saw another boost when Trump doubled down on his stupidity by choosing Vance and having a pretty dismal Convention where we warbled on and on until people lost track of what he was talking about.
She get another boost with her Convention and celebrity endorsements.
She did well in her first sit down interview (there haven't been many more).
She absolutely slaughtered Trump in the debate.
Hopefully Walz will do the same to Vance on Tuesday.
But each time those underlying trends come back. We are seeing this in the Pennsylvanian polling and elsewhere. Its bloody tough to win as an incumbent right now. We have seen that throughout the Western World. Harris needs to keep rolling back the tide. I am nervous she may run out of opportunities to do so.
Take a look at Harris' latest MSNBC interview. Even MSNBC is saying she dodged the questions.
She is a fundamentally poor candidate.
Agree re the trends helping Trump. Look at the Gallup polling on which party is best trusted to sort voters' priorities.
Few trust Starmer even fewer will trust Reeves as she is about as truthful.as Boris.
She's going to change the rules and borrow billions
I hope so! As long as it is invested with a future return in excess of the interest on it, and not simply spent.
Although... there's no need to increase borrowing.
Just raise tax take as a %GDP to the same level as those failed economic basket cases like Norway, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, etc. and, hey presto, there's another £330bn to invest, wipe out the deficit and start paying down debt.
It's so obvious I cannot see any government doesn't do it.
They would need to start paying similar salaries etc, they prefer the great unwashed to be poor and desperate
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
Really !!!
Most of us, myself included, even if we think the "free gear Keir" stuff harms SKS don't think he is going anywhere soon. It is short term. Rather like parties with Boris. Johnson was harmed by the lies in the end.
FWIW I think that there are some underlying trends in the US and elsewhere that are helping Trump in this election.
Although they are growing now real wages were severely damaged both by the sequelae of Covid and the inflationary bubble that followed the invasion of Ukraine. People do not feel better off than they did 4 years ago. Many aren't.
We had got very used to notional interest rates. Their replacement with more "normal" rates has hurt a lot of people who were somewhat ambitious on their borrowing.
Public services seem to struggle to maintain even the same level of service for those in need.
Harris gets boosts against that trend but ultimately the trend reasserts itself and things narrow again. So we saw a boost when the Democrats decided that the walking dead was a better TV program than an electoral strategy and she took over.
We saw another boost when Trump doubled down on his stupidity by choosing Vance and having a pretty dismal Convention where we warbled on and on until people lost track of what he was talking about.
She get another boost with her Convention and celebrity endorsements.
She did well in her first sit down interview (there haven't been many more).
She absolutely slaughtered Trump in the debate.
Hopefully Walz will do the same to Vance on Tuesday.
But each time those underlying trends come back. We are seeing this in the Pennsylvanian polling and elsewhere. Its bloody tough to win as an incumbent right now. We have seen that throughout the Western World. Harris needs to keep rolling back the tide. I am nervous she may run out of opportunities to do so.
Take a look at Harris' latest MSNBC interview. Even MSNBC is saying she dodged the questions.
She is a fundamentally poor candidate.
Agree re the trends helping Trump. Look at the Gallup polling on which party is best trusted to sort voters' priorities.
What kind of candidate do you think Trump is?
A Putin-approved one.
But Putin has said he wants a Harris win
Putin, and his mate Trump are well known for their transparent honesty, of course.
Few trust Starmer even fewer will trust Reeves as she is about as truthful.as Boris.
She's going to change the rules and borrow billions
I hope so! As long as it is invested with a future return in excess of the interest on it, and not simply spent.
Although... there's no need to increase borrowing.
Just raise tax take as a %GDP to the same level as those failed economic basket cases like Norway, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, etc. and, hey presto, there's another £330bn to invest, wipe out the deficit and start paying down debt.
It's so obvious I cannot see any government doesn't do it.
On a very quick salary calculator someone on the equiv of £35k in Norway would need to pay a over £2k extra in income tax with VAT at 25% on almost everything with a reduced 15% for some foods.
Go ahead and knock on some doors and see what the feedback is.
No. There are plenty of other ways to raise the taxes without touching Income Tax. E.g.
- Tax unearned income at the same combined rate of NI + ICT as earned income attracts. - Increase IHT and remove some/all of the exemptions. - Increase CGT to match NI + ICT taxation rates. - Wealth tax. - Tax all British Citizens at UK rates. Ex-pat allowed to offset any local taxes they pay.
Some combination of these would work and probably allow the main ICT rate to be reduced.
You are the one who quoted Norway. I just went and checked. Your answer is "no no, we will raise taxes on things that wont impact you, dont worry it will be fine".
Apologies if I misread your post. I quoted Norway as a country with an overall tax take of more than the UK's (44.3% versus 35.3%).
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
Really !!!
Most of us, myself included, even if we think the "free gear Keir" stuff harms SKS don't think he is going anywhere soon. It is short term. Rather like parties with Boris. Johnson was harmed by the lies in the end.
What I find bizarre is burning political capital in the way they have done, and not having a plan that anyone can discern.
Few trust Starmer even fewer will trust Reeves as she is about as truthful.as Boris.
She's going to change the rules and borrow billions
I hope so! As long as it is invested with a future return in excess of the interest on it, and not simply spent.
Although... there's no need to increase borrowing.
Just raise tax take as a %GDP to the same level as those failed economic basket cases like Norway, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, etc. and, hey presto, there's another £330bn to invest, wipe out the deficit and start paying down debt.
It's so obvious I cannot see any government doesn't do it.
They would need to start paying similar salaries etc, they prefer the great unwashed to be poor and desperate
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
I can't see Starmer going unwillingly, and think he will lead Labour into the next GE.
But that's not what you, as a Labour supporter, should be worried about. What you should worry about is why Starmer and Labour have made so many unforced mis-steps in the first few months of their time in power, and why their attempts to handle those mis-steps have been so terrible.
Why was Blair so different in 1997? I'd argue that it was because he had a solid team behind him, all shooting in the same direction. As much as I dislike Alastair Campbell, Starmer really needs someone like him. Also, I think Starmer is missing a Brown-style heavyweight and a Prescott to talk to the left of the party.
I also think Starmer isn't particularly good at politics.
Coming into government is difficult. Especially with a downward pointing plane.
Where’s the government that sailed into office and got off to a brilliant start?
2010: Cameron and the Lib Dem coalition.
1997: aside from the mess with Ecclestone (which IMV was absolutely dodgy), they settled down fast and headed off in the direction they wanted.
Yes, in terms of the internal workings, the coalition is probably a rare - possibly the only - relatively recent example. The advantage of a deliberative process where those involved started by having to sit down and work out what they were going to do? And strengthened by the cross-party machinery that meant that everything got more fully considered and dumb ideas got knocked on the head.
Early Blair seemed decent at the time, but with hindsight the missed opportunities and failings that came back to haunt them appear in sharper resolution.
Attlee in 1945 got an impressive amount delivered in their early years, even though politically they were quickly in trouble.
My view is that any government will make mistakes only visible with hindsight, many years or decades later. Opportunities squandered; traps laid for themselves, to be sprung later. No government is anywhere near perfect.
But Starmer's is making obvious mistakes immediately, and is handling their response very poorly.
I think an interesting question is how Boris's 2019-2024 government would have done without Covid. I'm not a fan of his, and think his personal failings would have got to him eventually. But perhaps he might have done some good in that time.
All these problems facing Labour are utterly unforced, and of their own making.
How will they react when real events come and bash them in the face?
Got to agree there - Sue Gray may be solving issues on the civil service / delivery side of things.
But their need someone to quickly get control of the media / presentation side of things because it's running away from them...
I'm not sure that one person can dictate their way to a reform of the Civil Service. They are more likely to generate a tidal wave of hostility in the system. Which is what we have seen.
You need a broader and deeper change.
Hmm. If only somebody had written an article about the reasons for the Blob and what is necessary to tackle it...
FWIW I think that there are some underlying trends in the US and elsewhere that are helping Trump in this election.
Although they are growing now real wages were severely damaged both by the sequelae of Covid and the inflationary bubble that followed the invasion of Ukraine. People do not feel better off than they did 4 years ago. Many aren't.
We had got very used to notional interest rates. Their replacement with more "normal" rates has hurt a lot of people who were somewhat ambitious on their borrowing.
Public services seem to struggle to maintain even the same level of service for those in need.
Harris gets boosts against that trend but ultimately the trend reasserts itself and things narrow again. So we saw a boost when the Democrats decided that the walking dead was a better TV program than an electoral strategy and she took over.
We saw another boost when Trump doubled down on his stupidity by choosing Vance and having a pretty dismal Convention where we warbled on and on until people lost track of what he was talking about.
She get another boost with her Convention and celebrity endorsements.
She did well in her first sit down interview (there haven't been many more).
She absolutely slaughtered Trump in the debate.
Hopefully Walz will do the same to Vance on Tuesday.
But each time those underlying trends come back. We are seeing this in the Pennsylvanian polling and elsewhere. Its bloody tough to win as an incumbent right now. We have seen that throughout the Western World. Harris needs to keep rolling back the tide. I am nervous she may run out of opportunities to do so.
Take a look at Harris' latest MSNBC interview. Even MSNBC is saying she dodged the questions.
She is a fundamentally poor candidate.
Agree re the trends helping Trump. Look at the Gallup polling on which party is best trusted to sort voters' priorities.
What kind of candidate do you think Trump is?
A Putin-approved one.
But Putin has said he wants a Harris win
Putin, and his mate Trump are well known for their transparent honesty, of course.
FWIW I think that there are some underlying trends in the US and elsewhere that are helping Trump in this election.
Although they are growing now real wages were severely damaged both by the sequelae of Covid and the inflationary bubble that followed the invasion of Ukraine. People do not feel better off than they did 4 years ago. Many aren't.
We had got very used to notional interest rates. Their replacement with more "normal" rates has hurt a lot of people who were somewhat ambitious on their borrowing.
Public services seem to struggle to maintain even the same level of service for those in need.
Harris gets boosts against that trend but ultimately the trend reasserts itself and things narrow again. So we saw a boost when the Democrats decided that the walking dead was a better TV program than an electoral strategy and she took over.
We saw another boost when Trump doubled down on his stupidity by choosing Vance and having a pretty dismal Convention where we warbled on and on until people lost track of what he was talking about.
She get another boost with her Convention and celebrity endorsements.
She did well in her first sit down interview (there haven't been many more).
She absolutely slaughtered Trump in the debate.
Hopefully Walz will do the same to Vance on Tuesday.
But each time those underlying trends come back. We are seeing this in the Pennsylvanian polling and elsewhere. Its bloody tough to win as an incumbent right now. We have seen that throughout the Western World. Harris needs to keep rolling back the tide. I am nervous she may run out of opportunities to do so.
Take a look at Harris' latest MSNBC interview. Even MSNBC is saying she dodged the questions.
She is a fundamentally poor candidate.
Agree re the trends helping Trump. Look at the Gallup polling on which party is best trusted to sort voters' priorities.
What kind of candidate do you think Trump is?
A Putin-approved one.
But Putin has said he wants a Harris win
Putin, and his mate Trump are well known for their transparent honesty, of course.
That's why Trump tricked the world by waiting until Biden was elected before launching his full-scale invasion.
Few trust Starmer even fewer will trust Reeves as she is about as truthful.as Boris.
She's going to change the rules and borrow billions
I hope so! As long as it is invested with a future return in excess of the interest on it, and not simply spent.
Although... there's no need to increase borrowing.
Just raise tax take as a %GDP to the same level as those failed economic basket cases like Norway, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, etc. and, hey presto, there's another £330bn to invest, wipe out the deficit and start paying down debt.
It's so obvious I cannot see any government doesn't do it.
How do you raise taxes without discouraging whatever you're taxing? Tax high earners - high earners move abroad. Tax income - people work less. Tax companies - companies go elsewhere or do less. Tax consumption - consumption reduces. And so on. And as a result you collect less tax. We could change our economic model of course so we are more dependent on producing stuff, which tends to be less mobile. But that's very hard to do.
So hard to do that Norway, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden etc. manage it.
See my other post for specific ideas.
Too many in this country are trapped in a narrow-thought box that says we must either borrow more or cut spending. There's an obvious and relatively simple answer.
The biggest issue is how to get from here (UK tax and spend) to Scandinavian tax and spend. Overwhelmingly if you poll on adding a penny on tax for the NHS you get support. Try putting it in a manfesto. May tried (hamfistedly, but at least she tried) to sort social care. It backfired on her massively.
We also have a dichotomy. Everyone knows the NHS is terrible, but also most say they get great service from people who care. There is a danger that the negative narratives take on a life of their own.
I am fed up with governments of all colours lacking the balls to say that we need to fund infrastructure. We do. If you borrow money to build infrastructure you will get rewards back. And the money goes to pay workers and companies in the UK, so its a boost to the economy.
OT. By 2026 the SNP will have been in power for 19 years with nothing more inspiring to offer than another 5 years of John Swinney. Can't see that going terribly well although the SNP certainly have a robust floor of maybe 30%. Scottish Labour, meanwhile, will be in the unenviable position of fighting an election during Sir Keir's midterm. So, in what is likely to be a "change" election, neither of the Big Two are likely to prospering.
The Tories by then will have a new leader - declaration tomorrow - and are the only right-of-centre option currently represented at Holyrood. But will surely struggle to get beyond the 31 MSPs they have at the moment, and may struggle even to defend them judging by recent polling (though they likely get an uptick between now and May 26). The LibDems may well get a bounce but they are starting with only 5 MSPs and lack strength across the country. The Greens may do OK but their record in cohabitation with the SNP has done little to recommend them to the wider public. Reform may get a toe in the door but Nigel F who, let's face it IS Reform, is not renowned for his popularity north of the border.
So, in other words, difficult to get excited about the prospects of any of the parties. Likely therefore to see a very splintered parliament. Best guess is that the "unionist" parties will outnumber the Indy ones as predicted by the thread header. So best bet is a Lab/Lib minority coalition reliant on Tory votes to get their budget through. There will be no repeat of 2007-2011 when the Tories did deals with an SNP minority - we all saw how that ended up.
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
Really !!!
Most of us, myself included, even if we think the "free gear Keir" stuff harms SKS don't think he is going anywhere soon. It is short term. Rather like parties with Boris. Johnson was harmed by the lies in the end.
What I find bizarre is burning political capital in the way they have done, and not having a plan that anyone can discern.
So do I.
They came in with alot of good will, even from many defeated Tories, and one of the reasons I voted for them in the end was they were very good at giving the impression they had a plan to hit the ground running.
I also thought Reeves was competent too.
But they clearly haven't and all this crap we have done more in "x" weeks than the Tories have done in "x" years just doesn't wash or stand up to scrutiny.
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
I am aspiring for unreliably sane Roger, it seems way more fun.
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
What? Apologies if it wasn't clear, but I meant to imply Starmer is going nowhere! My view is Alligate is damaging, but it isn't going to shift Starmer as leader - the Labour Party just don't tend to act like that.
EDIT: Thanks for considering me sane though. And also for bracketing me with DavidL!
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
I am aspiring for unreliably sane Roger, it seems way more fun.
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
Really !!!
Most of us, myself included, even if we think the "free gear Keir" stuff harms SKS don't think he is going anywhere soon. It is short term. Rather like parties with Boris. Johnson was harmed by the lies in the end.
What I find bizarre is burning political capital in the way they have done, and not having a plan that anyone can discern.
So do I.
They came in with alot of good will, even from many defeated Tories, and one of the reasons I voted for them in the end was they were very good at giving the impression they had a plan to hit the ground running.
I also thought Reeves was competent too.
But they clearly haven't and all this crap we have done more in "x" weeks than the Tories have done in "x" years just doesn't wash or stand up to scrutiny.
"alot of good will, even from many defeated Tories"
Yup. In fact a number of Tories, on this site, switched to backing Labour and are among those defending him now.
Few trust Starmer even fewer will trust Reeves as she is about as truthful.as Boris.
She's going to change the rules and borrow billions
I hope so! As long as it is invested with a future return in excess of the interest on it, and not simply spent.
Although... there's no need to increase borrowing.
Just raise tax take as a %GDP to the same level as those failed economic basket cases like Norway, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, etc. and, hey presto, there's another £330bn to invest, wipe out the deficit and start paying down debt.
It's so obvious I cannot see any government doesn't do it.
How do you raise taxes without discouraging whatever you're taxing? Tax high earners - high earners move abroad. Tax income - people work less. Tax companies - companies go elsewhere or do less. Tax consumption - consumption reduces. And so on. And as a result you collect less tax. We could change our economic model of course so we are more dependent on producing stuff, which tends to be less mobile. But that's very hard to do.
So hard to do that Norway, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden etc. manage it.
See my other post for specific ideas.
Too many in this country are trapped in a narrow-thought box that says we must either borrow more or cut spending. There's an obvious and relatively simple answer.
The biggest issue is how to get from here (UK tax and spend) to Scandinavian tax and spend. Overwhelmingly if you poll on adding a penny on tax for the NHS you get support. Try putting it in a manfesto. May tried (hamfistedly, but at least she tried) to sort social care. It backfired on her massively.
We also have a dichotomy. Everyone knows the NHS is terrible, but also most say they get great service from people who care. There is a danger that the negative narratives take on a life of their own.
I am fed up with governments of all colours lacking the balls to say that we need to fund infrastructure. We do. If you borrow money to build infrastructure you will get rewards back. And the money goes to pay workers and companies in the UK, so its a boost to the economy.
Yup. Try saying that we are going to reduce the planned increase in nurses for the NHS and fix the lifts in hospitals.
The problem, politically, is that increasing raw staffing levels is doable within an electoral cycle. If you started planning a new hospital today, would it have patients before the next election day?
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
I can't see Starmer going unwillingly, and think he will lead Labour into the next GE.
But that's not what you, as a Labour supporter, should be worried about. What you should worry about is why Starmer and Labour have made so many unforced mis-steps in the first few months of their time in power, and why their attempts to handle those mis-steps have been so terrible.
Why was Blair so different in 1997? I'd argue that it was because he had a solid team behind him, all shooting in the same direction. As much as I dislike Alastair Campbell, Starmer really needs someone like him. Also, I think Starmer is missing a Brown-style heavyweight and a Prescott to talk to the left of the party.
I also think Starmer isn't particularly good at politics.
Coming into government is difficult. Especially with a downward pointing plane.
Where’s the government that sailed into office and got off to a brilliant start?
We should remember that early Blair was not without its ructions. Wasn't there a ministerial resignation following the cut to single parent benefits? Quite a bit of unhappiness about sticking to the Tory spending limits. And then the Ecclestone business.
It became a staple in the Observer to ask whether it was Blair's worst week yet.
The main difference is that Blair was elected with 43.2% of the vote and Starmer only 33.7%. Blair had a lot more political credit to work with.
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
Really !!!
Most of us, myself included, even if we think the "free gear Keir" stuff harms SKS don't think he is going anywhere soon. It is short term. Rather like parties with Boris. Johnson was harmed by the lies in the end.
What I find bizarre is burning political capital in the way they have done, and not having a plan that anyone can discern.
So do I.
They came in with alot of good will, even from many defeated Tories, and one of the reasons I voted for them in the end was they were very good at giving the impression they had a plan to hit the ground running.
I also thought Reeves was competent too.
But they clearly haven't and all this crap we have done more in "x" weeks than the Tories have done in "x" years just doesn't wash or stand up to scrutiny.
"alot of good will, even from many defeated Tories"
Yup. In fact a number of Tories, on this site, switched to backing Labour and are among those defending him now.
I am also thinking of the likes of Jeremy Hunt, James Cleverly and Robert Buckland who wished them well after losing. May just have been performative but it was good to see.
FWIW I think that there are some underlying trends in the US and elsewhere that are helping Trump in this election.
Although they are growing now real wages were severely damaged both by the sequelae of Covid and the inflationary bubble that followed the invasion of Ukraine. People do not feel better off than they did 4 years ago. Many aren't.
We had got very used to notional interest rates. Their replacement with more "normal" rates has hurt a lot of people who were somewhat ambitious on their borrowing.
Public services seem to struggle to maintain even the same level of service for those in need.
Harris gets boosts against that trend but ultimately the trend reasserts itself and things narrow again. So we saw a boost when the Democrats decided that the walking dead was a better TV program than an electoral strategy and she took over.
We saw another boost when Trump doubled down on his stupidity by choosing Vance and having a pretty dismal Convention where we warbled on and on until people lost track of what he was talking about.
She get another boost with her Convention and celebrity endorsements.
She did well in her first sit down interview (there haven't been many more).
She absolutely slaughtered Trump in the debate.
Hopefully Walz will do the same to Vance on Tuesday.
But each time those underlying trends come back. We are seeing this in the Pennsylvanian polling and elsewhere. Its bloody tough to win as an incumbent right now. We have seen that throughout the Western World. Harris needs to keep rolling back the tide. I am nervous she may run out of opportunities to do so.
Take a look at Harris' latest MSNBC interview. Even MSNBC is saying she dodged the questions.
She is a fundamentally poor candidate.
Agree re the trends helping Trump. Look at the Gallup polling on which party is best trusted to sort voters' priorities.
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
I can't see Starmer going unwillingly, and think he will lead Labour into the next GE.
But that's not what you, as a Labour supporter, should be worried about. What you should worry about is why Starmer and Labour have made so many unforced mis-steps in the first few months of their time in power, and why their attempts to handle those mis-steps have been so terrible.
Why was Blair so different in 1997? I'd argue that it was because he had a solid team behind him, all shooting in the same direction. As much as I dislike Alastair Campbell, Starmer really needs someone like him. Also, I think Starmer is missing a Brown-style heavyweight and a Prescott to talk to the left of the party.
I also think Starmer isn't particularly good at politics.
Coming into government is difficult. Especially with a downward pointing plane.
Where’s the government that sailed into office and got off to a brilliant start?
2010: Cameron and the Lib Dem coalition.
1997: aside from the mess with Ecclestone (which IMV was absolutely dodgy), they settled down fast and headed off in the direction they wanted.
Yes, in terms of the internal workings, the coalition is probably a rare - possibly the only - relatively recent example. The advantage of a deliberative process where those involved started by having to sit down and work out what they were going to do? And strengthened by the cross-party machinery that meant that everything got more fully considered and dumb ideas got knocked on the head.
Early Blair seemed decent at the time, but with hindsight the missed opportunities and failings that came back to haunt them appear in sharper resolution.
Attlee in 1945 got an impressive amount delivered in their early years, even though politically they were quickly in trouble.
My view is that any government will make mistakes only visible with hindsight, many years or decades later. Opportunities squandered; traps laid for themselves, to be sprung later. No government is anywhere near perfect.
But Starmer's is making obvious mistakes immediately, and is handling their response very poorly.
I think an interesting question is how Boris's 2019-2024 government would have done without Covid. I'm not a fan of his, and think his personal failings would have got to him eventually. But perhaps he might have done some good in that time.
Nothing good was ever going to come of that man achieving the top office, as was obvious to anyone really watching, decades in advance.
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
I can't see Starmer going unwillingly, and think he will lead Labour into the next GE.
But that's not what you, as a Labour supporter, should be worried about. What you should worry about is why Starmer and Labour have made so many unforced mis-steps in the first few months of their time in power, and why their attempts to handle those mis-steps have been so terrible.
Why was Blair so different in 1997? I'd argue that it was because he had a solid team behind him, all shooting in the same direction. As much as I dislike Alastair Campbell, Starmer really needs someone like him. Also, I think Starmer is missing a Brown-style heavyweight and a Prescott to talk to the left of the party.
I also think Starmer isn't particularly good at politics.
Coming into government is difficult. Especially with a downward pointing plane.
Where’s the government that sailed into office and got off to a brilliant start?
We should remember that early Blair was not without its ructions. Wasn't there a ministerial resignation following the cut to single parent benefits? Quite a bit of unhappiness about sticking to the Tory spending limits. And then the Ecclestone business.
It became a staple in the Observer to ask whether it was Blair's worst week yet.
The main difference is that Blair was elected with 43.2% of the vote and Starmer only 33.7%. Blair had a lot more political credit to work with.
Starmer had bags of political capital to start with. Settling the pay disputes with the unions didn't upset anyone in the Labour party.
What he doesn't have, or hasn't started using, is a plan. Blair had one and started it from the day he entered office.
Obscure fact of the day: in two hundred years the population of the larger of the principal British Isles has more than quadrupled whereas the population of the lesser is unchanged.
British ignorance of the day really. Fancy not being aware of the devastating consequences of a famine caused in part by government policy and indifference on what was a part of your country at the time?
You think that fact is obscure to anyone in Ireland?
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
What? Apologies if it wasn't clear, but I meant to imply Starmer is going nowhere! My view is Alligate is damaging, but it isn't going to shift Starmer as leader - the Labour Party just don't tend to act like that.
EDIT: Thanks for considering me sane though. And also for bracketing me with DavidL!
You want Roger's approval?
If he didn't detest me, I'd try harder
One of my heroes in Benjamin Franklin, who liked to be able to express an idea robustly to someone he disagreed with without making an enemy of the person. I disagree with Roger about most things we discuss on here but I'm sure if I met him socially I wouldn't detest him and we could find plenty to agree on.
Starmer’s enthusiasm for speedy law change on assisted dying - without any prior and independent analysis of potential safeguards - suggests he has not properly understood the risks as well as benefits of reform. It’s worrying."
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
What? Apologies if it wasn't clear, but I meant to imply Starmer is going nowhere! My view is Alligate is damaging, but it isn't going to shift Starmer as leader - the Labour Party just don't tend to act like that.
EDIT: Thanks for considering me sane though. And also for bracketing me with DavidL!
You want Roger's approval?
If he didn't detest me, I'd try harder
One of my heroes in Benjamin Franklin, who liked to be able to express an idea robustly to someone he disagreed with without making an enemy of the person. I disagree with Roger about most things we discuss on here but I'm sure if I met him socially I wouldn't detest him and we could find plenty to agree on.
Roger must despise himself
He's a brilliant corporate propagandist, but also a communist
He seems to hate his jewishness so much that he supports islamists
FWIW I think that there are some underlying trends in the US and elsewhere that are helping Trump in this election.
Although they are growing now real wages were severely damaged both by the sequelae of Covid and the inflationary bubble that followed the invasion of Ukraine. People do not feel better off than they did 4 years ago. Many aren't.
We had got very used to notional interest rates. Their replacement with more "normal" rates has hurt a lot of people who were somewhat ambitious on their borrowing.
Public services seem to struggle to maintain even the same level of service for those in need.
Harris gets boosts against that trend but ultimately the trend reasserts itself and things narrow again. So we saw a boost when the Democrats decided that the walking dead was a better TV program than an electoral strategy and she took over.
We saw another boost when Trump doubled down on his stupidity by choosing Vance and having a pretty dismal Convention where we warbled on and on until people lost track of what he was talking about.
She get another boost with her Convention and celebrity endorsements.
She did well in her first sit down interview (there haven't been many more).
She absolutely slaughtered Trump in the debate.
Hopefully Walz will do the same to Vance on Tuesday.
But each time those underlying trends come back. We are seeing this in the Pennsylvanian polling and elsewhere. Its bloody tough to win as an incumbent right now. We have seen that throughout the Western World. Harris needs to keep rolling back the tide. I am nervous she may run out of opportunities to do so.
Take a look at Harris' latest MSNBC interview. Even MSNBC is saying she dodged the questions.
She is a fundamentally poor candidate.
Agree re the trends helping Trump. Look at the Gallup polling on which party is best trusted to sort voters' priorities.
Not enough about Hannibal Lecter ?
AFAICS the important issues such as whether you would rather be eaten by a shark or electrocuted were barely touched upon. No wonder the interviewer was disappointed.
FWIW I think that there are some underlying trends in the US and elsewhere that are helping Trump in this election.
Although they are growing now real wages were severely damaged both by the sequelae of Covid and the inflationary bubble that followed the invasion of Ukraine. People do not feel better off than they did 4 years ago. Many aren't.
We had got very used to notional interest rates. Their replacement with more "normal" rates has hurt a lot of people who were somewhat ambitious on their borrowing.
Public services seem to struggle to maintain even the same level of service for those in need.
Harris gets boosts against that trend but ultimately the trend reasserts itself and things narrow again. So we saw a boost when the Democrats decided that the walking dead was a better TV program than an electoral strategy and she took over.
We saw another boost when Trump doubled down on his stupidity by choosing Vance and having a pretty dismal Convention where we warbled on and on until people lost track of what he was talking about.
She get another boost with her Convention and celebrity endorsements.
She did well in her first sit down interview (there haven't been many more).
She absolutely slaughtered Trump in the debate.
Hopefully Walz will do the same to Vance on Tuesday.
But each time those underlying trends come back. We are seeing this in the Pennsylvanian polling and elsewhere. Its bloody tough to win as an incumbent right now. We have seen that throughout the Western World. Harris needs to keep rolling back the tide. I am nervous she may run out of opportunities to do so.
Take a look at Harris' latest MSNBC interview. Even MSNBC is saying she dodged the questions.
She is a fundamentally poor candidate.
Agree re the trends helping Trump. Look at the Gallup polling on which party is best trusted to sort voters' priorities.
Not enough about Hannibal Lecter ?
AFAICS the important issues such as whether you would rather be eaten by a shark or electrocuted were barely touched upon. No wonder the interviewer was disappointed.
Or, indeed, being electrocuted by a shark, while being eaten by a Haitian Immigrant Squirrel.
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
What? Apologies if it wasn't clear, but I meant to imply Starmer is going nowhere! My view is Alligate is damaging, but it isn't going to shift Starmer as leader - the Labour Party just don't tend to act like that.
EDIT: Thanks for considering me sane though. And also for bracketing me with DavidL!
You want Roger's approval?
If he didn't detest me, I'd try harder
One of my heroes in Benjamin Franklin, who liked to be able to express an idea robustly to someone he disagreed with without making an enemy of the person. I disagree with Roger about most things we discuss on here but I'm sure if I met him socially I wouldn't detest him and we could find plenty to agree on.
IMV (and IM limited E) most people on PB would get on with others socially, even if they argue robustly on here.
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
I can't see Starmer going unwillingly, and think he will lead Labour into the next GE.
But that's not what you, as a Labour supporter, should be worried about. What you should worry about is why Starmer and Labour have made so many unforced mis-steps in the first few months of their time in power, and why their attempts to handle those mis-steps have been so terrible.
Why was Blair so different in 1997? I'd argue that it was because he had a solid team behind him, all shooting in the same direction. As much as I dislike Alastair Campbell, Starmer really needs someone like him. Also, I think Starmer is missing a Brown-style heavyweight and a Prescott to talk to the left of the party.
I also think Starmer isn't particularly good at politics.
Coming into government is difficult. Especially with a downward pointing plane.
Where’s the government that sailed into office and got off to a brilliant start?
We should remember that early Blair was not without its ructions. Wasn't there a ministerial resignation following the cut to single parent benefits? Quite a bit of unhappiness about sticking to the Tory spending limits. And then the Ecclestone business.
It became a staple in the Observer to ask whether it was Blair's worst week yet.
The main difference is that Blair was elected with 43.2% of the vote and Starmer only 33.7%. Blair had a lot more political credit to work with.
Blair thought he was going to have to resign after Ecclestone.
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
I can't see Starmer going unwillingly, and think he will lead Labour into the next GE.
But that's not what you, as a Labour supporter, should be worried about. What you should worry about is why Starmer and Labour have made so many unforced mis-steps in the first few months of their time in power, and why their attempts to handle those mis-steps have been so terrible.
Why was Blair so different in 1997? I'd argue that it was because he had a solid team behind him, all shooting in the same direction. As much as I dislike Alastair Campbell, Starmer really needs someone like him. Also, I think Starmer is missing a Brown-style heavyweight and a Prescott to talk to the left of the party.
I also think Starmer isn't particularly good at politics.
Coming into government is difficult. Especially with a downward pointing plane.
Where’s the government that sailed into office and got off to a brilliant start?
2010: Cameron and the Lib Dem coalition.
1997: aside from the mess with Ecclestone (which IMV was absolutely dodgy), they settled down fast and headed off in the direction they wanted.
Yes, in terms of the internal workings, the coalition is probably a rare - possibly the only - relatively recent example. The advantage of a deliberative process where those involved started by having to sit down and work out what they were going to do? And strengthened by the cross-party machinery that meant that everything got more fully considered and dumb ideas got knocked on the head.
Early Blair seemed decent at the time, but with hindsight the missed opportunities and failings that came back to haunt them appear in sharper resolution.
Attlee in 1945 got an impressive amount delivered in their early years, even though politically they were quickly in trouble.
My view is that any government will make mistakes only visible with hindsight, many years or decades later. Opportunities squandered; traps laid for themselves, to be sprung later. No government is anywhere near perfect.
But Starmer's is making obvious mistakes immediately, and is handling their response very poorly.
I think an interesting question is how Boris's 2019-2024 government would have done without Covid. I'm not a fan of his, and think his personal failings would have got to him eventually. But perhaps he might have done some good in that time.
Nothing good was ever going to come of that man achieving the top office, as was obvious to anyone really watching, decades in advance.
Boris handled Covid vaccines well, and probably better than Corbyn would have. He certainly handled Ukraine better than Corbyn would have.
So that's two good things that came of Boris achieving top office. Aside from that, I'm at a loss...
An age-based challenge on WFP in Scotland. Failure to consult with pensioners and not enough equalities analysis.
The eventual outcome of which is a ruling that WFP to people over a certain age are discriminatory and illegal - winter fuel payments to all or to no one?
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
I can't see Starmer going unwillingly, and think he will lead Labour into the next GE.
But that's not what you, as a Labour supporter, should be worried about. What you should worry about is why Starmer and Labour have made so many unforced mis-steps in the first few months of their time in power, and why their attempts to handle those mis-steps have been so terrible.
Why was Blair so different in 1997? I'd argue that it was because he had a solid team behind him, all shooting in the same direction. As much as I dislike Alastair Campbell, Starmer really needs someone like him. Also, I think Starmer is missing a Brown-style heavyweight and a Prescott to talk to the left of the party.
I also think Starmer isn't particularly good at politics.
Coming into government is difficult. Especially with a downward pointing plane.
Where’s the government that sailed into office and got off to a brilliant start?
We should remember that early Blair was not without its ructions. Wasn't there a ministerial resignation following the cut to single parent benefits? Quite a bit of unhappiness about sticking to the Tory spending limits. And then the Ecclestone business.
It became a staple in the Observer to ask whether it was Blair's worst week yet.
The main difference is that Blair was elected with 43.2% of the vote and Starmer only 33.7%. Blair had a lot more political credit to work with.
Blair thought he was going to have to resign after Ecclestone.
Do Alli's bungs to Labour and Labour MPs amount to more than a Bernie?
Few trust Starmer even fewer will trust Reeves as she is about as truthful.as Boris.
She's going to change the rules and borrow billions
I hope so! As long as it is invested with a future return in excess of the interest on it, and not simply spent.
Although... there's no need to increase borrowing.
Just raise tax take as a %GDP to the same level as those failed economic basket cases like Norway, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, etc. and, hey presto, there's another £330bn to invest, wipe out the deficit and start paying down debt.
It's so obvious I cannot see any government doesn't do it.
How do you raise taxes without discouraging whatever you're taxing? Tax high earners - high earners move abroad. Tax income - people work less. Tax companies - companies go elsewhere or do less. Tax consumption - consumption reduces. And so on. And as a result you collect less tax. We could change our economic model of course so we are more dependent on producing stuff, which tends to be less mobile. But that's very hard to do.
So hard to do that Norway, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden etc. manage it.
See my other post for specific ideas.
Too many in this country are trapped in a narrow-thought box that says we must either borrow more or cut spending. There's an obvious and relatively simple answer.
Those countries you mention tend to show the opposite of what you're arguing.
All of them have better energy, housing and infrastructure policies we do, and none of them are rich because of their large welfare states, but in spite of them. And none of them is the socialist paradise that the left think they are.
Norway is totally exceptional because of its gigantic oil and gas revenues. Sweden taxes income very heavily but doesn't levy an inheritance tax, so obviously keeps old money wealth very effectively while the skilled middle class and many aspiring entreprenurs leave. Denmark has a very flexible labour market and no minimum wage, and it is much easier to build stuff there. It has also grown fast with Germany, which won't be so easy without Russian gas any more. Finland gives business more freedom than the UK does. Belgium and Austria have benefited hugely from cheap Russian gas and Germany's boom over the last twenty years which won't continue, and Belgium in particular is on some measures noticeably poorer than the UK in any case.
Dozens of factors determine a country's wealth besides its tax and welfare systems. If this country were getting everything right except its tax and welfare systems, it could afford to have high tax and lots of welfare and still be prosperous. But it would be prosperous IN SPITE OF those burdens not BECAUSE OF them. And as we are cocking so much else up, for a start making it close to impossible to build houses and having about the most expensive energy in the world, we can't.
Not that we have nothing to learn from Scandanavia. I'd be happy to follow Denmark in scrapping the minimum wage, Finland in freeing up our industry and commerce, Sweden in abolishing inheritance taxes, Norway in extracting all the oil and gas we can and just about everywhere in making it easier to build.
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
I can't see Starmer going unwillingly, and think he will lead Labour into the next GE.
But that's not what you, as a Labour supporter, should be worried about. What you should worry about is why Starmer and Labour have made so many unforced mis-steps in the first few months of their time in power, and why their attempts to handle those mis-steps have been so terrible.
Why was Blair so different in 1997? I'd argue that it was because he had a solid team behind him, all shooting in the same direction. As much as I dislike Alastair Campbell, Starmer really needs someone like him. Also, I think Starmer is missing a Brown-style heavyweight and a Prescott to talk to the left of the party.
I also think Starmer isn't particularly good at politics.
Coming into government is difficult. Especially with a downward pointing plane.
Where’s the government that sailed into office and got off to a brilliant start?
We should remember that early Blair was not without its ructions. Wasn't there a ministerial resignation following the cut to single parent benefits? Quite a bit of unhappiness about sticking to the Tory spending limits. And then the Ecclestone business.
It became a staple in the Observer to ask whether it was Blair's worst week yet.
The main difference is that Blair was elected with 43.2% of the vote and Starmer only 33.7%. Blair had a lot more political credit to work with.
Blair thought he was going to have to resign after Ecclestone.
Do Alli's bungs to Labour and Labour MPs amount to more than a Bernie?
Ecclestone got a change in legislation, I believe. Not seeing that Alli has.
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
I can't see Starmer going unwillingly, and think he will lead Labour into the next GE.
But that's not what you, as a Labour supporter, should be worried about. What you should worry about is why Starmer and Labour have made so many unforced mis-steps in the first few months of their time in power, and why their attempts to handle those mis-steps have been so terrible.
Why was Blair so different in 1997? I'd argue that it was because he had a solid team behind him, all shooting in the same direction. As much as I dislike Alastair Campbell, Starmer really needs someone like him. Also, I think Starmer is missing a Brown-style heavyweight and a Prescott to talk to the left of the party.
I also think Starmer isn't particularly good at politics.
Coming into government is difficult. Especially with a downward pointing plane.
Where’s the government that sailed into office and got off to a brilliant start?
We should remember that early Blair was not without its ructions. Wasn't there a ministerial resignation following the cut to single parent benefits? Quite a bit of unhappiness about sticking to the Tory spending limits. And then the Ecclestone business.
It became a staple in the Observer to ask whether it was Blair's worst week yet.
The main difference is that Blair was elected with 43.2% of the vote and Starmer only 33.7%. Blair had a lot more political credit to work with.
In terms of political credit, Sir Keir will just have to console himself with a majority of 174.
At FMQs today Swinney continued to suck up to the Greens in the hope that they vote for his budget. They wanted a new tax on private jets in Scotland which they claimed would earn £21m a year. They claimed that there was 12,911 private flights between Scottish airports and elsewhere. Swinney said it was "an interesting idea".
Putting aside the issue of how many of these flights are for training purposes and the inevitable consequence for such a tax in terms of avoidance by planes being based south of the border no thought whatsoever has been given to the implications for Scotland as a place for international business and finance in particular. Even out of government the Greens continue to inflict damage on our economy and prospects.
This actually makes me feel more positive about Jenrick. From the Spectator:
For Theresa May, it was running through fields of wheat; what’s the naughtiest thing you’ve ever done?
CLEVERLY: It’s all on a [BBC] interview I did with John Pienaar in 2015. [Cleverly told Pienaar he had smoked cannabis at university and watched online porn.]
JENRICK: I was actually quite naughty as a child and teenager. So a lot of the things I did probably should not enter the public domain. I’ll give you one, which, I’m afraid, is by no means the naughtiest thing I did. After a few too many drinks, as a teenager, I did accept a bet to climb the Christmas tree in Wolverhampton’s city centre. That did not end well.
BADENOCH: I don’t care to say. It definitely is not running through fields of wheat, but I’m not going to tell you the naughtiest thing I’ve ever done.
TUGENDHAT: I invaded a country once which was a few years ago, 2003; I was part of the invading army in Iraq.
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
I can't see Starmer going unwillingly, and think he will lead Labour into the next GE.
But that's not what you, as a Labour supporter, should be worried about. What you should worry about is why Starmer and Labour have made so many unforced mis-steps in the first few months of their time in power, and why their attempts to handle those mis-steps have been so terrible.
Why was Blair so different in 1997? I'd argue that it was because he had a solid team behind him, all shooting in the same direction. As much as I dislike Alastair Campbell, Starmer really needs someone like him. Also, I think Starmer is missing a Brown-style heavyweight and a Prescott to talk to the left of the party.
I also think Starmer isn't particularly good at politics.
Coming into government is difficult. Especially with a downward pointing plane.
Where’s the government that sailed into office and got off to a brilliant start?
We should remember that early Blair was not without its ructions. Wasn't there a ministerial resignation following the cut to single parent benefits? Quite a bit of unhappiness about sticking to the Tory spending limits. And then the Ecclestone business.
It became a staple in the Observer to ask whether it was Blair's worst week yet.
The main difference is that Blair was elected with 43.2% of the vote and Starmer only 33.7%. Blair had a lot more political credit to work with.
Blair thought he was going to have to resign after Ecclestone.
Do Alli's bungs to Labour and Labour MPs amount to more than a Bernie?
Ecclestone got a change in legislation, I believe. Not seeing that Alli has.
Apparently, in F1 a 'Bernie' became known as paying a bribe, getting what you want, and then getting your money back. Allegedly...
As I pointed out yesterday, Alli has splurged the money so widely that it's impossible to know what he may have got for his investment. I might suggest candidates he preferred may be something worth investigating.
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
What? Apologies if it wasn't clear, but I meant to imply Starmer is going nowhere! My view is Alligate is damaging, but it isn't going to shift Starmer as leader - the Labour Party just don't tend to act like that.
EDIT: Thanks for considering me sane though. And also for bracketing me with DavidL!
Alligate
Can we call those implicated Alligaters? At least in speech, where it works better than in writing.
Few trust Starmer even fewer will trust Reeves as she is about as truthful.as Boris.
She's going to change the rules and borrow billions
I hope so! As long as it is invested with a future return in excess of the interest on it, and not simply spent.
Although... there's no need to increase borrowing.
Just raise tax take as a %GDP to the same level as those failed economic basket cases like Norway, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, etc. and, hey presto, there's another £330bn to invest, wipe out the deficit and start paying down debt.
It's so obvious I cannot see any government doesn't do it.
How do you raise taxes without discouraging whatever you're taxing? Tax high earners - high earners move abroad. Tax income - people work less. Tax companies - companies go elsewhere or do less. Tax consumption - consumption reduces. And so on. And as a result you collect less tax. We could change our economic model of course so we are more dependent on producing stuff, which tends to be less mobile. But that's very hard to do.
You are comparing Britain with countries that value good, well maintained infrastructure, good quality housing for all, a dislike of grifters, and a commitment to equality of opportunity and wealth. We used to have those values until we, and all our governments, systematically undermined them over the past 45 years. If would hope that other countries also have a more responsible media than ours.
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
What? Apologies if it wasn't clear, but I meant to imply Starmer is going nowhere! My view is Alligate is damaging, but it isn't going to shift Starmer as leader - the Labour Party just don't tend to act like that.
EDIT: Thanks for considering me sane though. And also for bracketing me with DavidL!
Alligate
Can we call those implicated Alligaters? At least in speech, where it works better than in writing.
OT. By 2026 the SNP will have been in power for 19 years with nothing more inspiring to offer than another 5 years of John Swinney. Can't see that going terribly well although the SNP certainly have a robust floor of maybe 30%. Scottish Labour, meanwhile, will be in the unenviable position of fighting an election during Sir Keir's midterm. So, in what is likely to be a "change" election, neither of the Big Two are likely to prospering.
The Tories by then will have a new leader - declaration tomorrow - and are the only right-of-centre option currently represented at Holyrood. But will surely struggle to get beyond the 31 MSPs they have at the moment, and may struggle even to defend them judging by recent polling (though they likely get an uptick between now and May 26). The LibDems may well get a bounce but they are starting with only 5 MSPs and lack strength across the country. The Greens may do OK but their record in cohabitation with the SNP has done little to recommend them to the wider public. Reform may get a toe in the door but Nigel F who, let's face it IS Reform, is not renowned for his popularity north of the border.
So, in other words, difficult to get excited about the prospects of any of the parties. Likely therefore to see a very splintered parliament. Best guess is that the "unionist" parties will outnumber the Indy ones as predicted by the thread header. So best bet is a Lab/Lib minority coalition reliant on Tory votes to get their budget through. There will be no repeat of 2007-2011 when the Tories did deals with an SNP minority - we all saw how that ended up.
I would expect a Lab/Lib/Green minority government. I can’t see another SNP/Green government. Given that independence is off the table for the forseeable future, would the Lib Dems consider working with the SNP if the numbers were right?
So she supports a man who tried to inflame tensions during the riots and whose turned twitter into even more of a cesspit .
She supports a succesful African-American entrepreneur who has created businesses and jobs in the US and overseas and may well get a person onto Mars.
And, hopefully, bring them back again. That's too often forgotten in the hyping of his dreams.
Kennedy said: "this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth". Without that last clause, NASA would have had a much easier job...
Mars to Stay is a thing. Aldrin backed it - though I'm not sure I'd want to risk the people back home getting bored and just giving up on me.
I have no kids, I’d go once my parents have passed on.
My nephews would have a great story to tell their class, that their uncle and auntie live on another planet!
Might be more difficult to persuade the missus though, but she also has few relatives so you never know…
Labour MP took £1.2m loan from Lord Alli to buy house for her sister
Siobhain McDonagh says peer was ‘best friends’ with terminally ill sibling Margaret, Labour’s first female general secretary
A Labour MP accepted a £1.2 million loan from Lord Alli to buy a house.
Siobhain McDonagh, the MP for Mitcham and Morden, said the Labour peer helped her buy the house for her terminally ill sister Baroness McDonagh, Labour’s first female general secretary, who was the donor’s “best friend” for 25 years.
Described as a “tour de force” for the party, the peer was credited with helping Labour achieve its landslide election victory in 1997.
She was diagnosed with a brain tumour after suffering from a series of fits in November 2021 and died last year.
Ms McDonagh said that Lord Alli wanted “nothing other” than for her sister to be comfortable in the last months of her life….
… She added: “The loan will be repaid on gaining probate on Margaret’s Estate. It has been properly registered and Waheed wanted nothing other than his best friend being comfortable in the last months of her life.
That's a repeat of a story from last week - were a politican not involved would it be news - it's just a rich person helping their friend out.
Heck the only bit of news is that the rich person actually helped them out.
But it is a politician - and indeed, a politician gifting a substantial amount to another politician's relative.
Now, on the one hand, this is all being made public, and as such the public can judge the appropriateness of what's gone on - which is as it should be. However, Lord Alli does look to have financial dealings with a lot of senior Labour figures, which is getting to the point (if not already beyond it), where it looks as if he's been seeking to buy a network and exercise influence without ever needing to make explicit his patronage (and, implicitly, the potential future loss of it). Even if it's all innocent and he is simply helping out friends and colleagues, the impression of buying influence - bolstered by the reality of the No 10 pass - is unmistakable.
I think calls to ban all gifts and donations, including in kind, to politicians go much too far. We need MPs to be normal people and to be able to do the sorts of things normal people do. For example, if a friend offers to put up all invitees to his birthday bash for free, then the MP shouldn't be the only one to have to pay for themselves - but they should have to declare that hospitality and opt out of decisions that might be influenced by the freebie. Indeed, the pressing need for reform is to deal with conflicts of interest more effectively, including banning MPs and peers from voting or taking decisions where the interest is close enough (as councillors are so banned).
The problem that Labour has is that an MP should not be receiving hospitality in ways that employees are barred from following the Bribery Act 2010 (which MPs seem to be exempt from).
There doesn’t seem to be anything in the act that suggests MPs are exempt?
I hate the terms bribery and the racist word blackmail.
I prefer the term incentive based decision making.
Unfortunately for Downing Street, exactly 37 minutes after their line was published Guido went to pixel with evidence that Starmer paid tribute to the Queen on the day of her death from the very same ‘one-off’ penthouse. Gone were the family photos – replaced with some dark urns and books including an Obama biography…
This is going to become untenable for Keir Starmer. The revelations about Lord Alli’s apartment have only just started…
Which implies Guido can have as many examples as there have been broadcasts, but also that they do not add up to very much.
There’s two things that might be of relevance to the story. One is his compliance with Covid restrictions, and the other is that the cost of his use of the apartment was properly recorded to the appropriate authorities.
From the Telegraph piece, it almost certainly did comply with the Covid rules at the time of recording, if not the time of broadcast. The use of the flat for recording speeches would be an expense or donation to the Labour Party and not Starmer personally.
You can put up a false background of course. When I am on Teams at work, I have a background with the company logo.
I just don,t switch on the camera
Starmer doing a televised broadcast with the camera off might not work so well though...
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
What? Apologies if it wasn't clear, but I meant to imply Starmer is going nowhere! My view is Alligate is damaging, but it isn't going to shift Starmer as leader - the Labour Party just don't tend to act like that.
EDIT: Thanks for considering me sane though. And also for bracketing me with DavidL!
Alligate
Can we call those implicated Alligaters? At least in speech, where it works better than in writing.
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
What? Apologies if it wasn't clear, but I meant to imply Starmer is going nowhere! My view is Alligate is damaging, but it isn't going to shift Starmer as leader - the Labour Party just don't tend to act like that.
EDIT: Thanks for considering me sane though. And also for bracketing me with DavidL!
Alligate
Can we call those implicated Alligaters? At least in speech, where it works better than in writing.
"These Alligations are completely unfounded."
Starmer has an alibi
An Alli buy for everything
He’s trying to appeal to the middle aisle, but just looks cheap.
Few trust Starmer even fewer will trust Reeves as she is about as truthful.as Boris.
She's going to change the rules and borrow billions
I hope so! As long as it is invested with a future return in excess of the interest on it, and not simply spent.
Although... there's no need to increase borrowing.
Just raise tax take as a %GDP to the same level as those failed economic basket cases like Norway, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, etc. and, hey presto, there's another £330bn to invest, wipe out the deficit and start paying down debt.
It's so obvious I cannot see any government doesn't do it.
How do you raise taxes without discouraging whatever you're taxing? Tax high earners - high earners move abroad. Tax income - people work less. Tax companies - companies go elsewhere or do less. Tax consumption - consumption reduces. And so on. And as a result you collect less tax. We could change our economic model of course so we are more dependent on producing stuff, which tends to be less mobile. But that's very hard to do.
So hard to do that Norway, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden etc. manage it.
See my other post for specific ideas.
Too many in this country are trapped in a narrow-thought box that says we must either borrow more or cut spending. There's an obvious and relatively simple answer.
I think I pay quite enough tax as it is.
"Make do" is my response to a government that wants more.
Labour MP took £1.2m loan from Lord Alli to buy house for her sister
Siobhain McDonagh says peer was ‘best friends’ with terminally ill sibling Margaret, Labour’s first female general secretary
A Labour MP accepted a £1.2 million loan from Lord Alli to buy a house.
Siobhain McDonagh, the MP for Mitcham and Morden, said the Labour peer helped her buy the house for her terminally ill sister Baroness McDonagh, Labour’s first female general secretary, who was the donor’s “best friend” for 25 years.
Described as a “tour de force” for the party, the peer was credited with helping Labour achieve its landslide election victory in 1997.
She was diagnosed with a brain tumour after suffering from a series of fits in November 2021 and died last year.
Ms McDonagh said that Lord Alli wanted “nothing other” than for her sister to be comfortable in the last months of her life….
… She added: “The loan will be repaid on gaining probate on Margaret’s Estate. It has been properly registered and Waheed wanted nothing other than his best friend being comfortable in the last months of her life.
That's a repeat of a story from last week - were a politican not involved would it be news - it's just a rich person helping their friend out.
Heck the only bit of news is that the rich person actually helped them out.
But it is a politician - and indeed, a politician gifting a substantial amount to another politician's relative.
Now, on the one hand, this is all being made public, and as such the public can judge the appropriateness of what's gone on - which is as it should be. However, Lord Alli does look to have financial dealings with a lot of senior Labour figures, which is getting to the point (if not already beyond it), where it looks as if he's been seeking to buy a network and exercise influence without ever needing to make explicit his patronage (and, implicitly, the potential future loss of it). Even if it's all innocent and he is simply helping out friends and colleagues, the impression of buying influence - bolstered by the reality of the No 10 pass - is unmistakable.
I think calls to ban all gifts and donations, including in kind, to politicians go much too far. We need MPs to be normal people and to be able to do the sorts of things normal people do. For example, if a friend offers to put up all invitees to his birthday bash for free, then the MP shouldn't be the only one to have to pay for themselves - but they should have to declare that hospitality and opt out of decisions that might be influenced by the freebie. Indeed, the pressing need for reform is to deal with conflicts of interest more effectively, including banning MPs and peers from voting or taking decisions where the interest is close enough (as councillors are so banned).
The problem that Labour has is that an MP should not be receiving hospitality in ways that employees are barred from following the Bribery Act 2010 (which MPs seem to be exempt from).
There doesn’t seem to be anything in the act that suggests MPs are exempt?
I hate the terms bribery and the racist word blackmail.
I prefer the term incentive based decision making.
What's the non-racist term for whitewash, please?
Paint
Typical woke mince
Makes me think more of a pinkish-brown colour, but you never know with paint names nowadays
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
I can't see Starmer going unwillingly, and think he will lead Labour into the next GE.
But that's not what you, as a Labour supporter, should be worried about. What you should worry about is why Starmer and Labour have made so many unforced mis-steps in the first few months of their time in power, and why their attempts to handle those mis-steps have been so terrible.
Why was Blair so different in 1997? I'd argue that it was because he had a solid team behind him, all shooting in the same direction. As much as I dislike Alastair Campbell, Starmer really needs someone like him. Also, I think Starmer is missing a Brown-style heavyweight and a Prescott to talk to the left of the party.
I also think Starmer isn't particularly good at politics.
Coming into government is difficult. Especially with a downward pointing plane.
Where’s the government that sailed into office and got off to a brilliant start?
2010: Cameron and the Lib Dem coalition.
1997: aside from the mess with Ecclestone (which IMV was absolutely dodgy), they settled down fast and headed off in the direction they wanted.
Yes, in terms of the internal workings, the coalition is probably a rare - possibly the only - relatively recent example. The advantage of a deliberative process where those involved started by having to sit down and work out what they were going to do? And strengthened by the cross-party machinery that meant that everything got more fully considered and dumb ideas got knocked on the head.
Early Blair seemed decent at the time, but with hindsight the missed opportunities and failings that came back to haunt them appear in sharper resolution.
Attlee in 1945 got an impressive amount delivered in their early years, even though politically they were quickly in trouble.
My view is that any government will make mistakes only visible with hindsight, many years or decades later. Opportunities squandered; traps laid for themselves, to be sprung later. No government is anywhere near perfect.
But Starmer's is making obvious mistakes immediately, and is handling their response very poorly.
I think an interesting question is how Boris's 2019-2024 government would have done without Covid. I'm not a fan of his, and think his personal failings would have got to him eventually. But perhaps he might have done some good in that time.
Nothing good was ever going to come of that man achieving the top office, as was obvious to anyone really watching, decades in advance.
Boris handled Covid vaccines well, and probably better than Corbyn would have. He certainly handled Ukraine better than Corbyn would have.
So that's two good things that came of Boris achieving top office. Aside from that, I'm at a loss...
Brexit Got Done.
I might not be happy about it and would have preferred a different outcome and endstate, but we now have stable trading arrangements and rules which allows business to plan and invest.
FWIW I think that there are some underlying trends in the US and elsewhere that are helping Trump in this election.
Although they are growing now real wages were severely damaged both by the sequelae of Covid and the inflationary bubble that followed the invasion of Ukraine. People do not feel better off than they did 4 years ago. Many aren't.
We had got very used to notional interest rates. Their replacement with more "normal" rates has hurt a lot of people who were somewhat ambitious on their borrowing.
Public services seem to struggle to maintain even the same level of service for those in need.
Harris gets boosts against that trend but ultimately the trend reasserts itself and things narrow again. So we saw a boost when the Democrats decided that the walking dead was a better TV program than an electoral strategy and she took over.
We saw another boost when Trump doubled down on his stupidity by choosing Vance and having a pretty dismal Convention where we warbled on and on until people lost track of what he was talking about.
She get another boost with her Convention and celebrity endorsements.
She did well in her first sit down interview (there haven't been many more).
She absolutely slaughtered Trump in the debate.
Hopefully Walz will do the same to Vance on Tuesday.
But each time those underlying trends come back. We are seeing this in the Pennsylvanian polling and elsewhere. Its bloody tough to win as an incumbent right now. We have seen that throughout the Western World. Harris needs to keep rolling back the tide. I am nervous she may run out of opportunities to do so.
Take a look at Harris' latest MSNBC interview. Even MSNBC is saying she dodged the questions.
She is a fundamentally poor candidate.
Agree re the trends helping Trump. Look at the Gallup polling on which party is best trusted to sort voters' priorities.
Yes, the trend does help Trump and she is a poor candidate. She was not tested at all prior to getting the nomination. Just a coronation.
She is lucky she is up against the Trumpdozer.
I think HYUFD is correct. If she was up against Haley she'd be toast.
Your periodic reminder Hayley was up against Trump and she was toast.
Don't know what will happen November 5 but so far only one person has beaten Trump - Biden.
The key swing state, and they're (possibly) trying to avoid making a call.
Or maybe it is that close, and they all have near identical methodologies....
That’s totally bonkers. This has the look of Florida 2000 all over it. Let’s hope it’s not that close, and that both sides can agree on the result.
Just think how much better the aftermath of American elections would be, if they counted overnight and announced the results early the next morning. Do it the same as we do in the UK, rushing ballot boxes to counting centres, and have the USPS sweep mailboxes starting at midnight looking for last-minute PVs.
Well, the hotel staff have been round and put all the chairs around the swimming pool on their sides and turned all the tables upside down. So at least we’re now hurricane-proof….
Unfortunately for Downing Street, exactly 37 minutes after their line was published Guido went to pixel with evidence that Starmer paid tribute to the Queen on the day of her death from the very same ‘one-off’ penthouse. Gone were the family photos – replaced with some dark urns and books including an Obama biography…
This is going to become untenable for Keir Starmer. The revelations about Lord Alli’s apartment have only just started…
Which implies Guido can have as many examples as there have been broadcasts, but also that they do not add up to very much.
There’s two things that might be of relevance to the story. One is his compliance with Covid restrictions, and the other is that the cost of his use of the apartment was properly recorded to the appropriate authorities.
From the Telegraph piece, it almost certainly did comply with the Covid rules at the time of recording, if not the time of broadcast. The use of the flat for recording speeches would be an expense or donation to the Labour Party and not Starmer personally.
You can put up a false background of course. When I am on Teams at work, I have a background with the company logo.
I just don,t switch on the camera
Starmer doing a televised broadcast with the camera off might not work so well though...
Dunno...
"I'm Sir Keir Starmer, toolmaker's son and Prime Minister of this great country. Today, I speak to you from the black hole the previous government left in our finances..."
Few trust Starmer even fewer will trust Reeves as she is about as truthful.as Boris.
She's going to change the rules and borrow billions
I hope so! As long as it is invested with a future return in excess of the interest on it, and not simply spent.
Although... there's no need to increase borrowing.
Just raise tax take as a %GDP to the same level as those failed economic basket cases like Norway, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, etc. and, hey presto, there's another £330bn to invest, wipe out the deficit and start paying down debt.
It's so obvious I cannot see any government doesn't do it.
How do you raise taxes without discouraging whatever you're taxing? Tax high earners - high earners move abroad. Tax income - people work less. Tax companies - companies go elsewhere or do less. Tax consumption - consumption reduces. And so on. And as a result you collect less tax. We could change our economic model of course so we are more dependent on producing stuff, which tends to be less mobile. But that's very hard to do.
So hard to do that Norway, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden etc. manage it.
See my other post for specific ideas.
Too many in this country are trapped in a narrow-thought box that says we must either borrow more or cut spending. There's an obvious and relatively simple answer.
Those countries you mention tend to show the opposite of what you're arguing.
All of them have better energy, housing and infrastructure policies we do, and none of them are rich because of their large welfare states, but in spite of them. And none of them is the socialist paradise that the left think they are.
Norway is totally exceptional because of its gigantic oil and gas revenues. Sweden taxes income very heavily but doesn't levy an inheritance tax, so obviously keeps old money wealth very effectively while the skilled middle class and many aspiring entreprenurs leave. Denmark has a very flexible labour market and no minimum wage, and it is much easier to build stuff there. It has also grown fast with Germany, which won't be so easy without Russian gas any more. Finland gives business more freedom than the UK does. Belgium and Austria have benefited hugely from cheap Russian gas and Germany's boom over the last twenty years which won't continue, and Belgium in particular is on some measures noticeably poorer than the UK in any case.
Dozens of factors determine a country's wealth besides its tax and welfare systems. If this country were getting everything right except its tax and welfare systems, it could afford to have high tax and lots of welfare and still be prosperous. But it would be prosperous IN SPITE OF those burdens not BECAUSE OF them. And as we are cocking so much else up, for a start making it close to impossible to build houses and having about the most expensive energy in the world, we can't.
Not that we have nothing to learn from Scandanavia. I'd be happy to follow Denmark in scrapping the minimum wage, Finland in freeing up our industry and commerce, Sweden in abolishing inheritance taxes, Norway in extracting all the oil and gas we can and just about everywhere in making it easier to build.
I don't agree with all your policy prescriptions, but your underlying point is excellent. We certainly aren't going to fix the UK economy by adopting much higher rates of tax - whether or not higher taxes might be necessary over the next few years,
This actually makes me feel more positive about Jenrick. From the Spectator:
For Theresa May, it was running through fields of wheat; what’s the naughtiest thing you’ve ever done?
CLEVERLY: It’s all on a [BBC] interview I did with John Pienaar in 2015. [Cleverly told Pienaar he had smoked cannabis at university and watched online porn.]
JENRICK: I was actually quite naughty as a child and teenager. So a lot of the things I did probably should not enter the public domain. I’ll give you one, which, I’m afraid, is by no means the naughtiest thing I did. After a few too many drinks, as a teenager, I did accept a bet to climb the Christmas tree in Wolverhampton’s city centre. That did not end well.
BADENOCH: I don’t care to say. It definitely is not running through fields of wheat, but I’m not going to tell you the naughtiest thing I’ve ever done.
TUGENDHAT: I invaded a country once which was a few years ago, 2003; I was part of the invading army in Iraq.
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
I can't see Starmer going unwillingly, and think he will lead Labour into the next GE.
But that's not what you, as a Labour supporter, should be worried about. What you should worry about is why Starmer and Labour have made so many unforced mis-steps in the first few months of their time in power, and why their attempts to handle those mis-steps have been so terrible.
Why was Blair so different in 1997? I'd argue that it was because he had a solid team behind him, all shooting in the same direction. As much as I dislike Alastair Campbell, Starmer really needs someone like him. Also, I think Starmer is missing a Brown-style heavyweight and a Prescott to talk to the left of the party.
I also think Starmer isn't particularly good at politics.
Coming into government is difficult. Especially with a downward pointing plane.
Where’s the government that sailed into office and got off to a brilliant start?
2010: Cameron and the Lib Dem coalition.
1997: aside from the mess with Ecclestone (which IMV was absolutely dodgy), they settled down fast and headed off in the direction they wanted.
Yes, in terms of the internal workings, the coalition is probably a rare - possibly the only - relatively recent example. The advantage of a deliberative process where those involved started by having to sit down and work out what they were going to do? And strengthened by the cross-party machinery that meant that everything got more fully considered and dumb ideas got knocked on the head.
Early Blair seemed decent at the time, but with hindsight the missed opportunities and failings that came back to haunt them appear in sharper resolution.
Attlee in 1945 got an impressive amount delivered in their early years, even though politically they were quickly in trouble.
My view is that any government will make mistakes only visible with hindsight, many years or decades later. Opportunities squandered; traps laid for themselves, to be sprung later. No government is anywhere near perfect.
But Starmer's is making obvious mistakes immediately, and is handling their response very poorly.
I think an interesting question is how Boris's 2019-2024 government would have done without Covid. I'm not a fan of his, and think his personal failings would have got to him eventually. But perhaps he might have done some good in that time.
Nothing good was ever going to come of that man achieving the top office, as was obvious to anyone really watching, decades in advance.
Boris handled Covid vaccines well, and probably better than Corbyn would have. He certainly handled Ukraine better than Corbyn would have.
So that's two good things that came of Boris achieving top office. Aside from that, I'm at a loss...
Brexit Got Done.
I might not be happy about it and would have preferreda different outcome and endstate, but we now have stable trading arrangements and rules which allows business to plan and invest.
Whatever you think of him, the direction the country is following now owes more to him than to any of his successors.
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
I can't see Starmer going unwillingly, and think he will lead Labour into the next GE.
But that's not what you, as a Labour supporter, should be worried about. What you should worry about is why Starmer and Labour have made so many unforced mis-steps in the first few months of their time in power, and why their attempts to handle those mis-steps have been so terrible.
Why was Blair so different in 1997? I'd argue that it was because he had a solid team behind him, all shooting in the same direction. As much as I dislike Alastair Campbell, Starmer really needs someone like him. Also, I think Starmer is missing a Brown-style heavyweight and a Prescott to talk to the left of the party.
I also think Starmer isn't particularly good at politics.
Coming into government is difficult. Especially with a downward pointing plane.
Where’s the government that sailed into office and got off to a brilliant start?
2010: Cameron and the Lib Dem coalition.
1997: aside from the mess with Ecclestone (which IMV was absolutely dodgy), they settled down fast and headed off in the direction they wanted.
Yes, in terms of the internal workings, the coalition is probably a rare - possibly the only - relatively recent example. The advantage of a deliberative process where those involved started by having to sit down and work out what they were going to do? And strengthened by the cross-party machinery that meant that everything got more fully considered and dumb ideas got knocked on the head.
Early Blair seemed decent at the time, but with hindsight the missed opportunities and failings that came back to haunt them appear in sharper resolution.
Attlee in 1945 got an impressive amount delivered in their early years, even though politically they were quickly in trouble.
My view is that any government will make mistakes only visible with hindsight, many years or decades later. Opportunities squandered; traps laid for themselves, to be sprung later. No government is anywhere near perfect.
But Starmer's is making obvious mistakes immediately, and is handling their response very poorly.
I think an interesting question is how Boris's 2019-2024 government would have done without Covid. I'm not a fan of his, and think his personal failings would have got to him eventually. But perhaps he might have done some good in that time.
Nothing good was ever going to come of that man achieving the top office, as was obvious to anyone really watching, decades in advance.
Boris handled Covid vaccines well, and probably better than Corbyn would have. He certainly handled Ukraine better than Corbyn would have.
So that's two good things that came of Boris achieving top office. Aside from that, I'm at a loss...
Brexit Got Done.
I might not be happy about it and would have preferreda different outcome and endstate, but we now have stable trading arrangements and rules which allows business to plan and invest.
Whatever you think of him, the direction the country is following now owes more to him than to any of his successors.
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
I can't see Starmer going unwillingly, and think he will lead Labour into the next GE.
But that's not what you, as a Labour supporter, should be worried about. What you should worry about is why Starmer and Labour have made so many unforced mis-steps in the first few months of their time in power, and why their attempts to handle those mis-steps have been so terrible.
Why was Blair so different in 1997? I'd argue that it was because he had a solid team behind him, all shooting in the same direction. As much as I dislike Alastair Campbell, Starmer really needs someone like him. Also, I think Starmer is missing a Brown-style heavyweight and a Prescott to talk to the left of the party.
I also think Starmer isn't particularly good at politics.
Coming into government is difficult. Especially with a downward pointing plane.
Where’s the government that sailed into office and got off to a brilliant start?
2010: Cameron and the Lib Dem coalition.
1997: aside from the mess with Ecclestone (which IMV was absolutely dodgy), they settled down fast and headed off in the direction they wanted.
Yes, in terms of the internal workings, the coalition is probably a rare - possibly the only - relatively recent example. The advantage of a deliberative process where those involved started by having to sit down and work out what they were going to do? And strengthened by the cross-party machinery that meant that everything got more fully considered and dumb ideas got knocked on the head.
Early Blair seemed decent at the time, but with hindsight the missed opportunities and failings that came back to haunt them appear in sharper resolution.
Attlee in 1945 got an impressive amount delivered in their early years, even though politically they were quickly in trouble.
My view is that any government will make mistakes only visible with hindsight, many years or decades later. Opportunities squandered; traps laid for themselves, to be sprung later. No government is anywhere near perfect.
But Starmer's is making obvious mistakes immediately, and is handling their response very poorly.
I think an interesting question is how Boris's 2019-2024 government would have done without Covid. I'm not a fan of his, and think his personal failings would have got to him eventually. But perhaps he might have done some good in that time.
Nothing good was ever going to come of that man achieving the top office, as was obvious to anyone really watching, decades in advance.
Boris handled Covid vaccines well, and probably better than Corbyn would have. He certainly handled Ukraine better than Corbyn would have.
So that's two good things that came of Boris achieving top office. Aside from that, I'm at a loss...
To be honest, while Boris wasn't exactly my preference, I thought the 2019 Conservatives were on the right track with levelling up - which basically meant investing a load in infrastructure in locations which most needed it (rather than London). That it didn't happen was a bit down to a lack of determination but also partly down to being utterly derailed by covid both in terms of attention and in terms of money for two and a half years.
Saying Boris failed to achieve anything apart from addressing covid and Ukraine is like saying Churchill didn't really achieve anything 1940-45 apart from the second world war.
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
I can't see Starmer going unwillingly, and think he will lead Labour into the next GE.
But that's not what you, as a Labour supporter, should be worried about. What you should worry about is why Starmer and Labour have made so many unforced mis-steps in the first few months of their time in power, and why their attempts to handle those mis-steps have been so terrible.
Why was Blair so different in 1997? I'd argue that it was because he had a solid team behind him, all shooting in the same direction. As much as I dislike Alastair Campbell, Starmer really needs someone like him. Also, I think Starmer is missing a Brown-style heavyweight and a Prescott to talk to the left of the party.
I also think Starmer isn't particularly good at politics.
Coming into government is difficult. Especially with a downward pointing plane.
Where’s the government that sailed into office and got off to a brilliant start?
We should remember that early Blair was not without its ructions. Wasn't there a ministerial resignation following the cut to single parent benefits? Quite a bit of unhappiness about sticking to the Tory spending limits. And then the Ecclestone business.
It became a staple in the Observer to ask whether it was Blair's worst week yet.
The main difference is that Blair was elected with 43.2% of the vote and Starmer only 33.7%. Blair had a lot more political credit to work with.
Blair thought he was going to have to resign after Ecclestone.
Do Alli's bungs to Labour and Labour MPs amount to more than a Bernie?
Ecclestone got a change in legislation, I believe. Not seeing that Alli has.
Apparently, in F1 a 'Bernie' became known as paying a bribe, getting what you want, and then getting your money back. Allegedly...
As I pointed out yesterday, Alli has splurged the money so widely that it's impossible to know what he may have got for his investment. I might suggest candidates he preferred may be something worth investigating.
What does Alli want, beyond getting 'his' candidates in, which Matthew Faulding has overseen?
Had a look at his HOL contributions. He's spoken 4 times since Jan 2018 (two of them in early 2018) - nearly six years of nothing. Sure Starmer is against this sort of thing.
Prior to this, his main topics were the BBC, same sex marriage and equality acts.
Only other notable speeches were on Leveson and in support of assisted dying, which seems to have unusually cropped up as a hot topic all of a sudden, with comment that Starmer is about to push this through.
We'll never know his view on Inheritance Tax as it only got as far as 'My Lords, does the Minister—' before he was cut off.
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
I can't see Starmer going unwillingly, and think he will lead Labour into the next GE.
But that's not what you, as a Labour supporter, should be worried about. What you should worry about is why Starmer and Labour have made so many unforced mis-steps in the first few months of their time in power, and why their attempts to handle those mis-steps have been so terrible.
Why was Blair so different in 1997? I'd argue that it was because he had a solid team behind him, all shooting in the same direction. As much as I dislike Alastair Campbell, Starmer really needs someone like him. Also, I think Starmer is missing a Brown-style heavyweight and a Prescott to talk to the left of the party.
I also think Starmer isn't particularly good at politics.
Coming into government is difficult. Especially with a downward pointing plane.
Where’s the government that sailed into office and got off to a brilliant start?
2010: Cameron and the Lib Dem coalition.
1997: aside from the mess with Ecclestone (which IMV was absolutely dodgy), they settled down fast and headed off in the direction they wanted.
Yes, in terms of the internal workings, the coalition is probably a rare - possibly the only - relatively recent example. The advantage of a deliberative process where those involved started by having to sit down and work out what they were going to do? And strengthened by the cross-party machinery that meant that everything got more fully considered and dumb ideas got knocked on the head.
Early Blair seemed decent at the time, but with hindsight the missed opportunities and failings that came back to haunt them appear in sharper resolution.
Attlee in 1945 got an impressive amount delivered in their early years, even though politically they were quickly in trouble.
My view is that any government will make mistakes only visible with hindsight, many years or decades later. Opportunities squandered; traps laid for themselves, to be sprung later. No government is anywhere near perfect.
But Starmer's is making obvious mistakes immediately, and is handling their response very poorly.
I think an interesting question is how Boris's 2019-2024 government would have done without Covid. I'm not a fan of his, and think his personal failings would have got to him eventually. But perhaps he might have done some good in that time.
Nothing good was ever going to come of that man achieving the top office, as was obvious to anyone really watching, decades in advance.
Boris handled Covid vaccines well, and probably better than Corbyn would have. He certainly handled Ukraine better than Corbyn would have.
So that's two good things that came of Boris achieving top office. Aside from that, I'm at a loss...
Brexit Got Done.
I might not be happy about it and would have preferred a different outcome and endstate, but we now have stable trading arrangements and rules which allows business to plan and invest.
Herpes got done.
It's not something most people would brag about particularly if it was largely your fault in the first place.
It seems absurd to even ask the Q, but SKS isn't naturally of the Labour right & doesn't have a political base in Labour - instead he's been used by the right of the party (and willingly so), and when they decide he needs to go, hes gone.
Streeting or Reeves will be like vultures the first chance they get
#Akehurst4PM
Yvette Cooper is a possibility.
She was my thought.
However, while it's fun to speculate, the Labour Party tends to be very reluctant to pull the trigger on a leader. When was the last time a Labour leader was pushed aside? Arguably Blair, but if he doesn't count then you're looking back to before I was born. Whereas the Conservatives have had three successful coups in the last five years.
This site has gone completely barking! You are all living in a weird bubble. Starmer will be there in five years time and more than likely ten years. I'm surprised at you Cookie. You and David L have been the reliably sane ones. The go to posters when you want to see what the sane right are thinking. I think you all need a few days off!
I can't see Starmer going unwillingly, and think he will lead Labour into the next GE.
But that's not what you, as a Labour supporter, should be worried about. What you should worry about is why Starmer and Labour have made so many unforced mis-steps in the first few months of their time in power, and why their attempts to handle those mis-steps have been so terrible.
Why was Blair so different in 1997? I'd argue that it was because he had a solid team behind him, all shooting in the same direction. As much as I dislike Alastair Campbell, Starmer really needs someone like him. Also, I think Starmer is missing a Brown-style heavyweight and a Prescott to talk to the left of the party.
I also think Starmer isn't particularly good at politics.
Coming into government is difficult. Especially with a downward pointing plane.
Where’s the government that sailed into office and got off to a brilliant start?
2010: Cameron and the Lib Dem coalition.
1997: aside from the mess with Ecclestone (which IMV was absolutely dodgy), they settled down fast and headed off in the direction they wanted.
Yes, in terms of the internal workings, the coalition is probably a rare - possibly the only - relatively recent example. The advantage of a deliberative process where those involved started by having to sit down and work out what they were going to do? And strengthened by the cross-party machinery that meant that everything got more fully considered and dumb ideas got knocked on the head.
Early Blair seemed decent at the time, but with hindsight the missed opportunities and failings that came back to haunt them appear in sharper resolution.
Attlee in 1945 got an impressive amount delivered in their early years, even though politically they were quickly in trouble.
My view is that any government will make mistakes only visible with hindsight, many years or decades later. Opportunities squandered; traps laid for themselves, to be sprung later. No government is anywhere near perfect.
But Starmer's is making obvious mistakes immediately, and is handling their response very poorly.
I think an interesting question is how Boris's 2019-2024 government would have done without Covid. I'm not a fan of his, and think his personal failings would have got to him eventually. But perhaps he might have done some good in that time.
Nothing good was ever going to come of that man achieving the top office, as was obvious to anyone really watching, decades in advance.
Boris handled Covid vaccines well, and probably better than Corbyn would have. He certainly handled Ukraine better than Corbyn would have.
So that's two good things that came of Boris achieving top office. Aside from that, I'm at a loss...
To be honest, while Boris wasn't exactly my preference, I thought the 2019 Conservatives were on the right track with levelling up - which basically meant investing a load in infrastructure in locations which most needed it (rather than London). That it didn't happen was a bit down to a lack of determination but also partly down to being utterly derailed by covid both in terms of attention and in terms of money for two and a half years.
Saying Boris failed to achieve anything apart from addressing covid and Ukraine is like saying Churchill didn't really achieve anything 1940-45 apart from the second world war.
Arguably his finest achievement was getting PBers to speculate wildly about his fat-to-muscle ratio for days on end.
Comments
We could change our economic model of course so we are more dependent on producing stuff, which tends to be less mobile. But that's very hard to do.
JD Vance's favorability likened to 'herpes' in brutal poll analysis
https://www.rawstory.com/jd-vance-popularity/
..."The guy who says the Holocaust was overblown and Hitler was great, who wants to own slaves, who was a frequenter of backroom porn video booths, and who bragged about banging his wife’s sister . . . That guy was able to get to 27 percent favorable with women in North Carolina," wrote Last.
"But JD Vance is stuck at 18 percent among people who are basically his same age."..
Go ahead and knock on some doors and see what the feedback is.
And there is zero ways of removing a Labour party leader while in power - it took Blair getting feed up before Brown became leader...
- Tax unearned income at the same combined rate of NI + ICT as earned income attracts.
- Increase IHT and remove some/all of the exemptions.
- Increase CGT to match NI + ICT taxation rates.
- Wealth tax.
- Tax all British Citizens at UK rates. Ex-pat allowed to offset any local taxes they pay.
Some combination of these would work and probably allow the main ICT rate to be reduced.
But that's not what you, as a Labour supporter, should be worried about. What you should worry about is why Starmer and Labour have made so many unforced mis-steps in the first few months of their time in power, and why their attempts to handle those mis-steps have been so terrible.
Why was Blair so different in 1997? I'd argue that it was because he had a solid team behind him, all shooting in the same direction. As much as I dislike Alastair Campbell, Starmer really needs someone like him. Also, I think Starmer is missing a Brown-style heavyweight and a Prescott to talk to the left of the party.
I also think Starmer isn't particularly good at politics.
I agree with your principle though, and barring MPs from speaking, voting or making decisions on matters related to anything where they've received anything more than token benefits (other than in a legitimate part of their MP's, minister's or equivalent role) would go a long way towards resolving the problem.
See my other post for specific ideas.
Too many in this country are trapped in a narrow-thought box that says we must either borrow more or cut spending. There's an obvious and relatively simple answer.
Where’s the government that sailed into office and got off to a brilliant start?
EDIT: Thanks for considering me sane though. And also for bracketing me with DavidL!
1997: aside from the mess with Ecclestone (which IMV was absolutely dodgy), they settled down fast and headed off in the direction they wanted.
Guido on fire at the moment (just how he likes it).
"Make do" is my response to a government that wants more.
But the difference between us and the examples you cite is that they generate their wealth in fundamentally different ways (in Norway's case by having a shit-tonne of oil). Now we could remodel our economy so we're more like them - but we're very much in an I-wouldn't-have-started-from-here situation, not least because a) we're neck-deep in debt, and b) capital is much, much more mobile than it was when they did it.
And while Europe is rich, it's not exactly swimming in growth. It isn't exactly the model to follow for a country which, as I mentioned, is neck-deep in debt.
Early Blair seemed decent at the time, but with hindsight the missed opportunities and failings that came back to haunt them appear in sharper resolution.
Attlee in 1945 got an impressive amount delivered in their early years, even though politically they were quickly in trouble.
Really !!!
Most of us, myself included, even if we think the "free gear Keir" stuff harms SKS don't think he is going anywhere soon. It is short term. Rather like parties with Boris. Johnson was harmed by the lies in the end.
https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-sub-issues/global-tax-revenues/revenue-statistics-united-kingdom.pdf
I don't suggest we need to replicate their precise approach to raising those taxes.
But Starmer's is making obvious mistakes immediately, and is handling their response very poorly.
I think an interesting question is how Boris's 2019-2024 government would have done without Covid. I'm not a fan of his, and think his personal failings would have got to him eventually. But perhaps he might have done some good in that time.
Was writing my own.....
We also have a dichotomy. Everyone knows the NHS is terrible, but also most say they get great service from people who care. There is a danger that the negative narratives take on a life of their own.
I am fed up with governments of all colours lacking the balls to say that we need to fund infrastructure. We do. If you borrow money to build infrastructure you will get rewards back. And the money goes to pay workers and companies in the UK, so its a boost to the economy.
The Tories by then will have a new leader - declaration tomorrow - and are the only right-of-centre option currently represented at Holyrood. But will surely struggle to get beyond the 31 MSPs they have at the moment, and may struggle even to defend them judging by recent polling (though they likely get an uptick between now and May 26). The LibDems may well get a bounce but they are starting with only 5 MSPs and lack strength across the country. The Greens may do OK but their record in cohabitation with the SNP has done little to recommend them to the wider public. Reform may get a toe in the door but Nigel F who, let's face it IS Reform, is not renowned for his popularity north of the border.
So, in other words, difficult to get excited about the prospects of any of the parties. Likely therefore to see a very splintered parliament. Best guess is that the "unionist" parties will outnumber the Indy ones as predicted by the thread header. So best bet is a Lab/Lib minority coalition reliant on Tory votes to get their budget through. There will be no repeat of 2007-2011 when the Tories did deals with an SNP minority - we all saw how that ended up.
They came in with alot of good will, even from many defeated Tories, and one of the reasons I voted for them in the end was they were very good at giving the impression they had a plan to hit the ground running.
I also thought Reeves was competent too.
But they clearly haven't and all this crap we have done more in "x" weeks than the Tories have done in "x" years just doesn't wash or stand up to scrutiny.
If he didn't detest me, I'd try harder
Yup. In fact a number of Tories, on this site, switched to backing Labour and are among those defending him now.
The problem, politically, is that increasing raw staffing levels is doable within an electoral cycle. If you started planning a new hospital today, would it have patients before the next election day?
It became a staple in the Observer to ask whether it was Blair's worst week yet.
The main difference is that Blair was elected with 43.2% of the vote and Starmer only 33.7%. Blair had a lot more political credit to work with.
Real barrel scraping here.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/full-list-of-gifts-taken-by-north-east-mps-including-taylor-swift-wimbledon-and-ashes-tickets/ar-AA1rfVB6?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=a807663f03554f9b8cc311d3bccada95&ei=10
What he doesn't have, or hasn't started using, is a plan. Blair had one and started it from the day he entered office.
You think that fact is obscure to anyone in Ireland?
One of my heroes in Benjamin Franklin, who liked to be able to express an idea robustly to someone he disagreed with without making an enemy of the person. I disagree with Roger about most things we discuss on here but I'm sure if I met him socially I wouldn't detest him and we could find plenty to agree on.
@soniasodha
Starmer’s enthusiasm for speedy law change on assisted dying - without any prior and independent analysis of potential safeguards - suggests he has not properly understood the risks as well as benefits of reform. It’s worrying."
https://x.com/soniasodha/status/1837768450908840065
He's a brilliant corporate propagandist, but also a communist
He seems to hate his jewishness so much that he supports islamists
It must be fucking complicated in that brain
Will no one ask the substantive questions?
He certainly handled Ukraine better than Corbyn would have.
So that's two good things that came of Boris achieving top office. Aside from that, I'm at a loss...
All of them have better energy, housing and infrastructure policies we do, and none of them are rich because of their large welfare states, but in spite of them. And none of them is the socialist paradise that the left think they are.
Norway is totally exceptional because of its gigantic oil and gas revenues.
Sweden taxes income very heavily but doesn't levy an inheritance tax, so obviously keeps old money wealth very effectively while the skilled middle class and many aspiring entreprenurs leave.
Denmark has a very flexible labour market and no minimum wage, and it is much easier to build stuff there. It has also grown fast with Germany, which won't be so easy without Russian gas any more.
Finland gives business more freedom than the UK does.
Belgium and Austria have benefited hugely from cheap Russian gas and Germany's boom over the last twenty years which won't continue, and Belgium in particular is on some measures noticeably poorer than the UK in any case.
Dozens of factors determine a country's wealth besides its tax and welfare systems. If this country were getting everything right except its tax and welfare systems, it could afford to have high tax and lots of welfare and still be prosperous. But it would be prosperous IN SPITE OF those burdens not BECAUSE OF them. And as we are cocking so much else up, for a start making it close to impossible to build houses and having about the most expensive energy in the world, we can't.
Not that we have nothing to learn from Scandanavia. I'd be happy to follow Denmark in scrapping the minimum wage, Finland in freeing up our industry and commerce, Sweden in abolishing inheritance taxes, Norway in extracting all the oil and gas we can and just about everywhere in making it easier to build.
Putting aside the issue of how many of these flights are for training purposes and the inevitable consequence for such a tax in terms of avoidance by planes being based south of the border no thought whatsoever has been given to the implications for Scotland as a place for international business and finance in particular. Even out of government the Greens continue to inflict damage on our economy and prospects.
Still the best answer of the four, though.
As I pointed out yesterday, Alli has splurged the money so widely that it's impossible to know what he may have got for his investment. I might suggest candidates he preferred may be something worth investigating.
Can we call those implicated Alligaters? At least in speech, where it works better than in writing.
My nephews would have a great story to tell their class, that their uncle and auntie live on another planet!
Might be more difficult to persuade the missus though, but she also has few relatives so you never know…
An Alli buy for everything
I might not be happy about it and would have preferred a different outcome and endstate, but we now have stable trading arrangements and rules which allows business to plan and invest.
Don't know what will happen November 5 but so far only one person has beaten Trump - Biden.
Just think how much better the aftermath of American elections would be, if they counted overnight and announced the results early the next morning. Do it the same as we do in the UK, rushing ballot boxes to counting centres, and have the USPS sweep mailboxes starting at midnight looking for last-minute PVs.
"I'm Sir Keir Starmer, toolmaker's son and Prime Minister of this great country. Today, I speak to you from the black hole the previous government left in our finances..."
We certainly aren't going to fix the UK economy by adopting much higher rates of tax - whether or not higher taxes might be necessary over the next few years,
Saying Boris failed to achieve anything apart from addressing covid and Ukraine is like saying Churchill didn't really achieve anything 1940-45 apart from the second world war.
Had a look at his HOL contributions. He's spoken 4 times since Jan 2018 (two of them in early 2018) - nearly six years of nothing. Sure Starmer is against this sort of thing.
Prior to this, his main topics were the BBC, same sex marriage and equality acts.
Only other notable speeches were on Leveson and in support of assisted dying, which seems to have unusually cropped up as a hot topic all of a sudden, with comment that Starmer is about to push this through.
We'll never know his view on Inheritance Tax as it only got as far as 'My Lords, does the Minister—' before he was cut off.
One of the few foods I have actually spat out of my mouth
It's not something most people would brag about particularly if it was largely your fault in the first place.