Wasn't that Argentina 1978 when Willie Johnston was sent home in disgrace?
I, for one, have been blasting out Del Amitri’s “Don’t Come Home Too Soon” all evening.
Glasgow rock bands are sadly as good at failing as Scottish football teams. Aztec camera, del Amitri, Fratellis. In the latter 2 cases football anthems seem to be the kiss of death.
Prediction: Starmer will be a one-term Prime Minister.
This is not going to be a one term majority. The electorate has become more volatile, but they are not going back to the Tories anytime soon..
You might be right though and Crazy Ed Davey will beat Starmer in 2028 with a Rejoin manifesto.
He's dropped 7 points in 7 days.
His coalition is fraying before he's even in office.
Think about it.
I'd be interested to see your workings there.
Going from the wikipedia table: Techne -1 (44 to 43) YouGov -4 (41 to 37) R+W flat (42 to 42) WeThink -2 (45 to 43) Whitestone -1 (42 to 41) BMG -1 (42 to 41)...
Labour are consistently down, sure. But not by seven. And as long as voters to the right of the Liberal Democrats remain split, it barely matters.
What can you expect from Tories apart from making things up?
Tories. The Tories! The Tories. The Tories.The Tories! The TORIES! THE Tories. THE TORIES. *The Tories* The. Tories. TORIES. Tories. Tories. THE TORIES. *THE TORRRIIEESS!!*
It's all you have.
We don't need much.
I wonder on here occasionally how we got here with left liberal bastions across society, what you would deem woke. How and when did the BBC go from high Tory patricians to metropolitan liberal, to being defended by the left and attacked by the right, how and when health & safety went from mustached NCO types insisting on surnames to wet lefties fussing about conkers. And HR, and all those other things.
Did the left storm the gates, wave their critical race theory, insist it was their world. I don't think so. I think the right's withdrawal from public administration, now reaching its denouement, is instructive.
Step by step the patricians, then the Thatcherites, then the cosplay post-Thatcherites simply withdrew from areas of the public sphere they felt beneath them, were not the thing for a right leaning person to do. If state spending was bad, what was the point of actually running, directing, administering things when in office. Why govern at all? It is beneath you.
And the point of Starmer is simply this and the Labour manifesto says nothing it it doesn't say this - we will take administration seriously and that is differentiation enough.
I don't know if the Conservative party has a way back from recusing itself from government in such a flamboyant way, with not even the modest depth of Starmer to call upon. What does this revived Tory party look like and where does it come from.
Disagree with nearly everything you've written, but interesting anyway.
OK, would love to hear what you think happened, and is happening now.
Prediction: Starmer will be a one-term Prime Minister.
Possible. In 2019 Johnson was master of all he surveyed. He didn't even last one term.
A much more flawed character. Starmer is far more organised and capable.
Actually I could see Starmer "going on and on", to quote another prime minister he strangely resembles.
But he can't. He's 61.
Konrad Adenauer, in my opinion the greatest of all post war Western leaders was 73 when he became Federal Chancellor of Germany and went on for another fourteen years. Admittedly he was senile by the end.
Prediction: Starmer will be a one-term Prime Minister.
This is not going to be a one term majority. The electorate has become more volatile, but they are not going back to the Tories anytime soon..
You might be right though and Crazy Ed Davey will beat Starmer in 2028 with a Rejoin manifesto.
He's dropped 7 points in 7 days.
His coalition is fraying before he's even in office.
Think about it.
I'd be interested to see your workings there.
Going from the wikipedia table: Techne -1 (44 to 43) YouGov -4 (41 to 37) R+W flat (42 to 42) WeThink -2 (45 to 43) Whitestone -1 (42 to 41) BMG -1 (42 to 41)...
Labour are consistently down, sure. But not by seven. And as long as voters to the right of the Liberal Democrats remain split, it barely matters.
What can you expect from Tories apart from making things up?
Tories. The Tories! The Tories. The Tories.The Tories! The TORIES! THE Tories. THE TORIES. *The Tories* The. Tories. TORIES. Tories. Tories. THE TORIES. *THE TORRRIIEESS!!*
It's all you have.
We don't need much.
I wonder on here occasionally how we got here with left liberal bastions across society, what you would deem woke. How and when did the BBC go from high Tory patricians to metropolitan liberal, to being defended by the left and attacked by the right, how and when health & safety went from mustached NCO types insisting on surnames to wet lefties fussing about conkers. And HR, and all those other things.
Did the left storm the gates, wave their critical race theory, insist it was their world. I don't think so. I think the right's withdrawal from public administration, now reaching its denouement, is instructive.
Step by step the patricians, then the Thatcherites, then the cosplay post-Thatcherites simply withdrew from areas of the public sphere they felt beneath them, were not the thing for a right leaning person to do. If state spending was bad, what was the point of actually running, directing, administering things when in office. Why govern at all? It is beneath you.
And the point of Starmer is simply this and the Labour manifesto says nothing it it doesn't say this - we will take administration seriously and that is differentiation enough.
I don't know if the Conservative party has a way back from recusing itself from government in such a flamboyant way, with not even the modest depth of Starmer to call upon. What does this revived Tory party look like and where does it come from.
I think you are right. Conservatives have withdrawn from the institutions of state.
That's been going on for ages.
Must find my copy of Alan Clark's "The Tories". Two points I remember from it. One is the comment that every Conservative leader ends up hating the party they led. (And that was before Hague, IDS, Howard, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak.) The other was that Thatcher did have an opportunity in the mid to late 80s to get the public sector intelligensia/professionals on side. Don't remember the details, and I bet the book is now too well hidden. But The Lady had that chance, but she blew it.
Cameron managed to get some sections of the public sector onside. In 2010 he won teachers and doctors.
Public services are almost intrinsically small c conservative. Teachers, health professionals, police, prisons, civil service are intrinsically reluctant to change. The big C Conservatives are actively hostile to them.
If you can't afford pay rises and you are in charge of millions of workers, one might consider it prudent not to demotivate them further with hostility.
Prediction: Starmer will be a one-term Prime Minister.
This is not going to be a one term majority. The electorate has become more volatile, but they are not going back to the Tories anytime soon..
You might be right though and Crazy Ed Davey will beat Starmer in 2028 with a Rejoin manifesto.
He's dropped 7 points in 7 days.
His coalition is fraying before he's even in office.
Think about it.
I'd be interested to see your workings there.
Going from the wikipedia table: Techne -1 (44 to 43) YouGov -4 (41 to 37) R+W flat (42 to 42) WeThink -2 (45 to 43) Whitestone -1 (42 to 41) BMG -1 (42 to 41)...
Labour are consistently down, sure. But not by seven. And as long as voters to the right of the Liberal Democrats remain split, it barely matters.
What can you expect from Tories apart from making things up?
Tories. The Tories! The Tories. The Tories.The Tories! The TORIES! THE Tories. THE TORIES. *The Tories* The. Tories. TORIES. Tories. Tories. THE TORIES. *THE TORRRIIEESS!!*
It's all you have.
We don't need much.
I wonder on here occasionally how we got here with left liberal bastions across society, what you would deem woke. How and when did the BBC go from high Tory patricians to metropolitan liberal, to being defended by the left and attacked by the right, how and when health & safety went from mustached NCO types insisting on surnames to wet lefties fussing about conkers. And HR, and all those other things.
Did the left storm the gates, wave their critical race theory, insist it was their world. I don't think so. I think the right's withdrawal from public administration, now reaching its denouement, is instructive.
Step by step the patricians, then the Thatcherites, then the cosplay post-Thatcherites simply withdrew from areas of the public sphere they felt beneath them, were not the thing for a right leaning person to do. If state spending was bad, what was the point of actually running, directing, administering things when in office. Why govern at all? It is beneath you.
And the point of Starmer is simply this and the Labour manifesto says nothing it it doesn't say this - we will take administration seriously and that is differentiation enough.
I don't know if the Conservative party has a way back from recusing itself from government in such a flamboyant way, with not even the modest depth of Starmer to call upon. What does this revived Tory party look like and where does it come from.
Super post. I would add. If you despise, defund and denigrate public services, as lazy, unproductive and overpaid, then the millions who work for them won't even consider voting for you. Let alone vote for you. Cameron won teachers. Teachers!!! In 2010.
Defund public services?
The state of this.
Come work in them. Then we'll talk. State of you. How else would you describe a zero increase in SEN per pupil funding since 2010? That's actual. Not real terms.
How would you describe the highest level of taxation as a % of GDP since the 1960s? You can say that the money given to public services is being poorly deployed - I'd be the first to agree with you. But underfunded THEY AIN'T.
Oh but they are. All that money is going to an aging population. Witness the closed libraries, youth clubs, mental health support, park upkeep, public toilets, potholes, SureStarts, etc., etc. ad nauseum. Which is why there's a general perception that nowt works. Which all circles back to the original point that the Tories at some point decided that they shouldn't work. Which is OK. But it doesn't take the country with you. And simply denying it is happening leads inevitably to polling in the teens. Because folk aren't stupid.
Prediction: Starmer will be a one-term Prime Minister.
Possible. In 2019 Johnson was master of all he surveyed. He didn't even last one term.
A much more flawed character. Starmer is far more organised and capable.
Actually I could see Starmer "going on and on", to quote another prime minister he strangely resembles.
But he can't. He's 61.
Konrad Adenauer, in my opinion the greatest of all post war Western leaders was 73 when he became Federal Chancellor of Germany and went on for another fourteen years. Admittedly he was senile by the end.
Life is very easy for them, mind. The rest of us have been having to remember in recent days Was it us at Juno and the Yanks at Omaha, or the other way round? Not a problem for Johnny Hun.
TBF, it kinda was.
Yes. My narrow point was that they don't have to memorize which beaches they were at when they were at all of them.
Prediction: Starmer will be a one-term Prime Minister.
This is not going to be a one term majority. The electorate has become more volatile, but they are not going back to the Tories anytime soon..
You might be right though and Crazy Ed Davey will beat Starmer in 2028 with a Rejoin manifesto.
He's dropped 7 points in 7 days.
His coalition is fraying before he's even in office.
Think about it.
I'd be interested to see your workings there.
Going from the wikipedia table: Techne -1 (44 to 43) YouGov -4 (41 to 37) R+W flat (42 to 42) WeThink -2 (45 to 43) Whitestone -1 (42 to 41) BMG -1 (42 to 41)...
Labour are consistently down, sure. But not by seven. And as long as voters to the right of the Liberal Democrats remain split, it barely matters.
I find these hyper-defensive posts absolutely fascinating. Reams of them as soon as I dare suggest SKS is an empty vessel built on sand that is going to rapidly fall apart.
Absolutely no-one wants to hear that this side of the election precisely because they are very worried about it.
That'll be "no, there aren't any data showing Labour down seven points in seven days", then.
It was posted on here earlier today or yesterday. No, I can't be arsed finding it. You can if you like.
You know I'm right. Hence the twitchy pedantry that avoids the substantive point.
Conclusion: you suspect I might be right and want to rapidly shut it down.
If you are right, that's interesting and important. But only if it's true.
Which is why I went to have a look... and I don't see any sign that it is true. If you've got something, great, bring it on. But I'm sure you respect us all enough to know that "it was posted here sometime, but I can't be bothered to find it" doesn't cut the mustard.
Wasn't that Argentina 1978 when Willie Johnston was sent home in disgrace?
I, for one, have been blasting out Del Amitri’s “Don’t Come Home Too Soon” all evening.
Glasgow rock bands are sadly as good at failing as Scottish football teams. Aztec camera, del Amitri, Fratellis. In the latter 2 cases football anthems seem to be the kiss of death.
Thats why you watch perth based bands
Like?
INXS started there, although, as “The Vegetables”.
Prediction: Starmer will be a one-term Prime Minister.
Possible. In 2019 Johnson was master of all he surveyed. He didn't even last one term.
A much more flawed character. Starmer is far more organised and capable.
Actually I could see Starmer "going on and on", to quote another prime minister he strangely resembles.
But he can't. He's 61.
PMs can look pretty invincible, yet in 130 years only two have managed a decade. It's actually quite impressive how democratic states can manage to avoid individuals going on and on even without term limits to enforce it.
Starmer will not be very old come 2028/2029. He should have a large enough buffer to win a second term (but then again so did Boris, albeit with greater years of baggage) unless he completely collapses and the Tories have a spectacular recovery, but even if he manages it, very few leaders would last out even to 8-9 years.
I wouldn't be surprised if Starmer called it quits after one term, our political leaders seem to go in for short careers in recent decades, but I think he'll manage a re-election and last at least a little beyond - a big win, an opposition which will probably be figuring things out, and 'blame the last government' working relatively well in a first term should see him through.
Prediction: Starmer will be a one-term Prime Minister.
Possible. In 2019 Johnson was master of all he surveyed. He didn't even last one term.
A much more flawed character. Starmer is far more organised and capable.
Actually I could see Starmer "going on and on", to quote another prime minister he strangely resembles.
But he can't. He's 61.
Konrad Adenauer, in my opinion the greatest of all post war Western leaders was 73 when he became Federal Chancellor of Germany and went on for another fourteen years. Admittedly he was senile by the end.
Where is our modern day Enrico Dandalo, that's what I want to know.
- I think it’s rather sad that the only way you can deal with the present is to imagine / hope for a future that is so uncertain
- History doesn’t support your view that a (let’s say) 150 seat majority can be overturned in one term. So, realistically, if (IF) Labour take a 150+ seat maj then will be in power for 9-10 years minimum
- They, and the country, start from such a low base (as does your party) that I think you are detaching yourself from the reality of what is taking place as a psychological device. It’s a flight reaction.
History also says that an 80-seat majority can't be overturned in one go. If people are fed up then party loyalty is going to drop.
Only one government in a century has been a single term, including through much bigger crises too.
British voters may be unenthusiastic but pretty much always are willing to give a government a second chance.
I am not sure that is true.
Since 1924 we have had
Baldwin Tory 1 term 1924 - 1929 Heath Tory 1 term 1970 - 1974
and although stretching it a little because of the two elections in 1974,
Wilson/Callaghan Labour 1 term 1974 -1979
I'd put Labour 1945 to 1951 in that list as well, as they were really done for after the 1950 election.
1929 and 1950 were complete reversals of landslides and in the case of 1929 an enormous 209 majority!
So governments can collapse after one term and landslides can be reversed. And I would say we live in more volatile political times now than we ever have, so whatever the size of Labours majority on 4th July, nothing is guaranteed for 2028/2029.
Prediction: Starmer will be a one-term Prime Minister.
This is not going to be a one term majority. The electorate has become more volatile, but they are not going back to the Tories anytime soon..
You might be right though and Crazy Ed Davey will beat Starmer in 2028 with a Rejoin manifesto.
He's dropped 7 points in 7 days.
His coalition is fraying before he's even in office.
Think about it.
I'd be interested to see your workings there.
Going from the wikipedia table: Techne -1 (44 to 43) YouGov -4 (41 to 37) R+W flat (42 to 42) WeThink -2 (45 to 43) Whitestone -1 (42 to 41) BMG -1 (42 to 41)...
Labour are consistently down, sure. But not by seven. And as long as voters to the right of the Liberal Democrats remain split, it barely matters.
What can you expect from Tories apart from making things up?
Tories. The Tories! The Tories. The Tories.The Tories! The TORIES! THE Tories. THE TORIES. *The Tories* The. Tories. TORIES. Tories. Tories. THE TORIES. *THE TORRRIIEESS!!*
It's all you have.
We don't need much.
I wonder on here occasionally how we got here with left liberal bastions across society, what you would deem woke. How and when did the BBC go from high Tory patricians to metropolitan liberal, to being defended by the left and attacked by the right, how and when health & safety went from mustached NCO types insisting on surnames to wet lefties fussing about conkers. And HR, and all those other things.
Did the left storm the gates, wave their critical race theory, insist it was their world. I don't think so. I think the right's withdrawal from public administration, now reaching its denouement, is instructive.
Step by step the patricians, then the Thatcherites, then the cosplay post-Thatcherites simply withdrew from areas of the public sphere they felt beneath them, were not the thing for a right leaning person to do. If state spending was bad, what was the point of actually running, directing, administering things when in office. Why govern at all? It is beneath you.
And the point of Starmer is simply this and the Labour manifesto says nothing it it doesn't say this - we will take administration seriously and that is differentiation enough.
I don't know if the Conservative party has a way back from recusing itself from government in such a flamboyant way, with not even the modest depth of Starmer to call upon. What does this revived Tory party look like and where does it come from.
I think you are right. Conservatives have withdrawn from the institutions of state.
That's been going on for ages.
Must find my copy of Alan Clark's "The Tories". Two points I remember from it. One is the comment that every Conservative leader ends up hating the party they led. (And that was before Hague, IDS, Howard, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak.) The other was that Thatcher did have an opportunity in the mid to late 80s to get the public sector intelligensia/professionals on side. Don't remember the details, and I bet the book is now too well hidden. But The Lady had that chance, but she blew it.
Cameron managed to get some sections of the public sector onside. In 2010 he won teachers and doctors.
Public services are almost intrinsically small c conservative. Teachers, health professionals, police, prisons, civil service are intrinsically reluctant to change. The big C Conservatives are actively hostile to them.
Isn't is simply a bread and butter issue? Labour Governments have tended to pay public servants more, fund their organisations more generously, and employ more of them. Conservative Governments have tended to tax less. So more private sector workers vote Tory, more public sector ones vote Labour. Cultures have grown up around both habits, but the basics of self interest remain the same. The Wet Tories' great talent has been to tax and spend as much as Labour, whilst being so unlikeable that they have failed to get any public sector support for it.
Wasn't that Argentina 1978 when Willie Johnston was sent home in disgrace?
I, for one, have been blasting out Del Amitri’s “Don’t Come Home Too Soon” all evening.
Glasgow rock bands are sadly as good at failing as Scottish football teams. Aztec camera, del Amitri, Fratellis. In the latter 2 cases football anthems seem to be the kiss of death.
Prediction: Starmer will be a one-term Prime Minister.
Possible. In 2019 Johnson was master of all he surveyed. He didn't even last one term.
A much more flawed character. Starmer is far more organised and capable.
Actually I could see Starmer "going on and on", to quote another prime minister he strangely resembles.
But he can't. He's 61.
PMs can look pretty invincible, yet in 130 years only two have managed a decade. It's actually quite impressive how democratic states can manage to avoid individuals going on and on even without term limits to enforce it.
Starmer will not be very old come 2028/2029. He should have a large enough buffer to win a second term (but then again so did Boris, albeit with greater years of baggage) unless he completely collapses and the Tories have a spectacular recovery, but even if he manages it, very few leaders would last out even to 8-9 years.
I wouldn't be surprised if Starmer called it quits after one term, our political leaders seem to go in for short careers in recent decades, but I think he'll manage a re-election and last at least a little beyond - a big win, an opposition which will probably be figuring things out, and 'blame the last government' working relatively well in a first time should see him through.
This lot have offered up at least as much to remember them by, for as many years to come, as did Labour with its winter of discontent
Prediction: Starmer will be a one-term Prime Minister.
This is not going to be a one term majority. The electorate has become more volatile, but they are not going back to the Tories anytime soon..
You might be right though and Crazy Ed Davey will beat Starmer in 2028 with a Rejoin manifesto.
He's dropped 7 points in 7 days.
His coalition is fraying before he's even in office.
Think about it.
I'd be interested to see your workings there.
Going from the wikipedia table: Techne -1 (44 to 43) YouGov -4 (41 to 37) R+W flat (42 to 42) WeThink -2 (45 to 43) Whitestone -1 (42 to 41) BMG -1 (42 to 41)...
Labour are consistently down, sure. But not by seven. And as long as voters to the right of the Liberal Democrats remain split, it barely matters.
What can you expect from Tories apart from making things up?
Tories. The Tories! The Tories. The Tories.The Tories! The TORIES! THE Tories. THE TORIES. *The Tories* The. Tories. TORIES. Tories. Tories. THE TORIES. *THE TORRRIIEESS!!*
It's all you have.
We don't need much.
I wonder on here occasionally how we got here with left liberal bastions across society, what you would deem woke. How and when did the BBC go from high Tory patricians to metropolitan liberal, to being defended by the left and attacked by the right, how and when health & safety went from mustached NCO types insisting on surnames to wet lefties fussing about conkers. And HR, and all those other things.
Did the left storm the gates, wave their critical race theory, insist it was their world. I don't think so. I think the right's withdrawal from public administration, now reaching its denouement, is instructive.
Step by step the patricians, then the Thatcherites, then the cosplay post-Thatcherites simply withdrew from areas of the public sphere they felt beneath them, were not the thing for a right leaning person to do. If state spending was bad, what was the point of actually running, directing, administering things when in office. Why govern at all? It is beneath you.
And the point of Starmer is simply this and the Labour manifesto says nothing it it doesn't say this - we will take administration seriously and that is differentiation enough.
I don't know if the Conservative party has a way back from recusing itself from government in such a flamboyant way, with not even the modest depth of Starmer to call upon. What does this revived Tory party look like and where does it come from.
Super post. I would add. If you despise, defund and denigrate public services, as lazy, unproductive and overpaid, then the millions who work for them won't even consider voting for you. Let alone vote for you. Cameron won teachers. Teachers!!! In 2010.
Defund public services?
The state of this.
Come work in them. Then we'll talk. State of you. How else would you describe a zero increase in SEN per pupil funding since 2010? That's actual. Not real terms.
How would you describe the highest level of taxation as a % of GDP since the 1960s? You can say that the money given to public services is being poorly deployed - I'd be the first to agree with you. But underfunded THEY AIN'T.
Ffion Hague gets to be a Dame for public service and business. I haven't heard of anything she's done for public service or business, is there something I don't know or is this just a nice bauble while the Government can still dish them out?
Ffion Hague gets to be a Dame for public service and business. I haven't heard of anything she's done for public service or business, is there something I don't know or is this just a nice bauble while the Government can still dish them out?
No she is just related to one of the so called important people so gets a gong for fuck all
Let's face it, Starmer is rubbish. A grotesque failure. He inherited a party following a catastrophic defeat in 2019, and has done absolutely nothing to turn it around. He is no Tony Blair. Indeed, until recently he was Jeremy Corbyn's biggest fan. However, by sheer fortune, he is likely to end up being PM shortly, but only because of the incompetence of the Tories and a divided opposition.
And, to compound his uselessness, he is now doing everything he can, even before he's PM, to make sure Labour suffer another catastrophic defeat in 2029. Even though it hasn't happened yet, we all know he's a rubbish PM. He won't even prosecute Jimmy Savile, I'll bet.
- I think it’s rather sad that the only way you can deal with the present is to imagine / hope for a future that is so uncertain
- History doesn’t support your view that a (let’s say) 150 seat majority can be overturned in one term. So, realistically, if (IF) Labour take a 150+ seat maj then will be in power for 9-10 years minimum
- They, and the country, start from such a low base (as does your party) that I think you are detaching yourself from the reality of what is taking place as a psychological device. It’s a flight reaction.
History also says that an 80-seat majority can't be overturned in one go. If people are fed up then party loyalty is going to drop.
Only one government in a century has been a single term, including through much bigger crises too.
British voters may be unenthusiastic but pretty much always are willing to give a government a second chance.
I am not sure that is true.
Since 1924 we have had
Baldwin Tory 1 term 1924 - 1929 Heath Tory 1 term 1970 - 1974
and although stretching it a little because of the two elections in 1974,
Wilson/Callaghan Labour 1 term 1974 -1979
I'd put Labour 1945 to 1951 in that list as well, as they were really done for after the 1950 election.
1929 and 1950 were complete reversals of landslides and in the case of 1929 an enormous 209 majority!
So governments can collapse after one term and landslides can be reversed. And I would say we live in more volatile political times now than we ever have, so whatever the size of Labours majority on 4th July, nothing is guaranteed for 2028/2029.
Maybe, but you need a united opposition who at least look like they wouldn't be a complete shambles in government to overturn one. Whereas the Tories look like they are going to be a steaming pile of rubble in three weeks the way things are going.
Irvine Welsh @IrvineWelsh · 42m Argentina lost the opener to Saudi Arabia in the World Cup. We all know how that ended up. Best to keep your powder a little dry and fly under the radar for a bit.
Ffion Hague gets to be a Dame for public service and business. I haven't heard of anything she's done for public service or business, is there something I don't know or is this just a nice bauble while the Government can still dish them out?
Maybe 10% column A, 90% column B.
Many worthy people get recognised with honours. But it certainly helps to do some good and know the right people.
Or give money to the right people if you want to skip the first step.
Let's face it, Starmer is rubbish. A grotesque failure. He inherited a party following a catastrophic defeat in 2019, and has done absolutely nothing to turn it around. He is no Tony Blair. Indeed, until recently he was Jeremy Corbyn's biggest fan. However, by sheer fortune, he is likely to end up being PM shortly, but only because of the incompetence of the Tories and a divided opposition.
And, to compound his uselessness, he is now doing everything he can, even before he's PM, to make sure Labour suffer another catastrophic defeat in 2029. Even though it hasn't happened yet, we all know he's a rubbish PM. He won't even prosecute Jimmy Savile, I'll bet.
Let's face it, Starmer is rubbish. A grotesque failure. He inherited a party following a catastrophic defeat in 2019, and has done absolutely nothing to turn it around. He is no Tony Blair. Indeed, until recently he was Jeremy Corbyn's biggest fan. However, by sheer fortune, he is likely to end up being PM shortly, but only because of the incompetence of the Tories and a divided opposition.
And, to compound his uselessness, he is now doing everything he can, even before he's PM, to make sure Labour suffer another catastrophic defeat in 2029. Even though it hasn't happened yet, we all know he's a rubbish PM. He won't even prosecute Jimmy Savile, I'll bet.
Have I got all that right?
You missed the bit where he comes across a lamp that he rubs and finds there is a genie inside who offers him about 300 wishes.
- I think it’s rather sad that the only way you can deal with the present is to imagine / hope for a future that is so uncertain
- History doesn’t support your view that a (let’s say) 150 seat majority can be overturned in one term. So, realistically, if (IF) Labour take a 150+ seat maj then will be in power for 9-10 years minimum
- They, and the country, start from such a low base (as does your party) that I think you are detaching yourself from the reality of what is taking place as a psychological device. It’s a flight reaction.
History also says that an 80-seat majority can't be overturned in one go. If people are fed up then party loyalty is going to drop.
Only one government in a century has been a single term, including through much bigger crises too.
British voters may be unenthusiastic but pretty much always are willing to give a government a second chance.
I am not sure that is true.
Since 1924 we have had
Baldwin Tory 1 term 1924 - 1929 Heath Tory 1 term 1970 - 1974
and although stretching it a little because of the two elections in 1974,
Wilson/Callaghan Labour 1 term 1974 -1979
I'd put Labour 1945 to 1951 in that list as well, as they were really done for after the 1950 election.
1929 and 1950 were complete reversals of landslides and in the case of 1929 an enormous 209 majority!
So governments can collapse after one term and landslides can be reversed. And I would say we live in more volatile political times now than we ever have, so whatever the size of Labours majority on 4th July, nothing is guaranteed for 2028/2029.
Maybe, but you need a united opposition who at least look like they wouldn't be a complete shambles in government to overturn one. Whereas the Tories look like they are going to be a steaming pile of rubble in three weeks the way things are going.
Let's face it, Starmer is rubbish. A grotesque failure. He inherited a party following a catastrophic defeat in 2019, and has done absolutely nothing to turn it around. He is no Tony Blair. Indeed, until recently he was Jeremy Corbyn's biggest fan. However, by sheer fortune, he is likely to end up being PM shortly, but only because of the incompetence of the Tories and a divided opposition.
And, to compound his uselessness, he is now doing everything he can, even before he's PM, to make sure Labour suffer another catastrophic defeat in 2029. Even though it hasn't happened yet, we all know he's a rubbish PM. He won't even prosecute Jimmy Savile, I'll bet.
Have I got all that right?
You missed was a bit of a shagger. And the donkey and Diane Abbott.
Ffion Hague gets to be a Dame for public service and business. I haven't heard of anything she's done for public service or business, is there something I don't know or is this just a nice bauble while the Government can still dish them out?
Prediction: Starmer will be a one-term Prime Minister.
This is not going to be a one term majority. The electorate has become more volatile, but they are not going back to the Tories anytime soon..
You might be right though and Crazy Ed Davey will beat Starmer in 2028 with a Rejoin manifesto.
He's dropped 7 points in 7 days.
His coalition is fraying before he's even in office.
Think about it.
I'd be interested to see your workings there.
Going from the wikipedia table: Techne -1 (44 to 43) YouGov -4 (41 to 37) R+W flat (42 to 42) WeThink -2 (45 to 43) Whitestone -1 (42 to 41) BMG -1 (42 to 41)...
Labour are consistently down, sure. But not by seven. And as long as voters to the right of the Liberal Democrats remain split, it barely matters.
What can you expect from Tories apart from making things up?
Tories. The Tories! The Tories. The Tories.The Tories! The TORIES! THE Tories. THE TORIES. *The Tories* The. Tories. TORIES. Tories. Tories. THE TORIES. *THE TORRRIIEESS!!*
It's all you have.
We don't need much.
I wonder on here occasionally how we got here with left liberal bastions across society, what you would deem woke. How and when did the BBC go from high Tory patricians to metropolitan liberal, to being defended by the left and attacked by the right, how and when health & safety went from mustached NCO types insisting on surnames to wet lefties fussing about conkers. And HR, and all those other things.
Did the left storm the gates, wave their critical race theory, insist it was their world. I don't think so. I think the right's withdrawal from public administration, now reaching its denouement, is instructive.
Step by step the patricians, then the Thatcherites, then the cosplay post-Thatcherites simply withdrew from areas of the public sphere they felt beneath them, were not the thing for a right leaning person to do. If state spending was bad, what was the point of actually running, directing, administering things when in office. Why govern at all? It is beneath you.
And the point of Starmer is simply this and the Labour manifesto says nothing it it doesn't say this - we will take administration seriously and that is differentiation enough.
I don't know if the Conservative party has a way back from recusing itself from government in such a flamboyant way, with not even the modest depth of Starmer to call upon. What does this revived Tory party look like and where does it come from.
I think you are right. Conservatives have withdrawn from the institutions of state.
That's been going on for ages.
Must find my copy of Alan Clark's "The Tories". Two points I remember from it. OneH is the comment that every Conservative leader ends up hating the party they led. (And that was before Hague, IDS, Howard, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak.) The other was that Thatcher did have an opportunity in the mid to late 80s to get the public sector intelligensia/professionals on side. Don't remember the details, and I bet the book is now too well hidden. But The Lady had that chance, but she blew it.
Nobody hates the Tories more than the Tories themselves.
Let's face it, Starmer is rubbish. A grotesque failure. He inherited a party following a catastrophic defeat in 2019, and has done absolutely nothing to turn it around. He is no Tony Blair. Indeed, until recently he was Jeremy Corbyn's biggest fan. However, by sheer fortune, he is likely to end up being PM shortly, but only because of the incompetence of the Tories and a divided opposition.
And, to compound his uselessness, he is now doing everything he can, even before he's PM, to make sure Labour suffer another catastrophic defeat in 2029. Even though it hasn't happened yet, we all know he's a rubbish PM. He won't even prosecute Jimmy Savile, I'll bet.
Have I got all that right?
You missed the bit where he comes across a lamp that he rubs and finds there is a genie inside who offers him about 300 wishes.
Wishes from lamp rubbing are notorious for hilarious bad outcomes that weren't planned...like midas wishing for everything he touched turned to gold then he needed to pee
Let's face it, Starmer is rubbish. A grotesque failure. He inherited a party following a catastrophic defeat in 2019, and has done absolutely nothing to turn it around. He is no Tony Blair. Indeed, until recently he was Jeremy Corbyn's biggest fan. However, by sheer fortune, he is likely to end up being PM shortly, but only because of the incompetence of the Tories and a divided opposition.
And, to compound his uselessness, he is now doing everything he can, even before he's PM, to make sure Labour suffer another catastrophic defeat in 2029. Even though it hasn't happened yet, we all know he's a rubbish PM. He won't even prosecute Jimmy Savile, I'll bet.
Have I got all that right?
I think it is a bit comical that people are already focusing on supposedly inevitable backlash or failure that he will oversee. Sure, that's possible, most government's are a bit crappy so its best to be prepared for that outcome, but 'might do badly' is not much of a revelation, and the public do try to indulge in a bit of optimism about what leaders can do from time to time.
On the broader point, we don't like to give any credit to people, even when it is due. Boris was up against Corbyn, but he still had positives and took actions which magnified the victory that occurred, it wasn't all down to the opposition. If Starmer wins, he will have been greatly aided by what he has faced, but it won't be entirely down to that either.
Let's face it, Starmer is rubbish. A grotesque failure. He inherited a party following a catastrophic defeat in 2019, and has done absolutely nothing to turn it around. He is no Tony Blair. Indeed, until recently he was Jeremy Corbyn's biggest fan. However, by sheer fortune, he is likely to end up being PM shortly, but only because of the incompetence of the Tories and a divided opposition.
And, to compound his uselessness, he is now doing everything he can, even before he's PM, to make sure Labour suffer another catastrophic defeat in 2029. Even though it hasn't happened yet, we all know he's a rubbish PM. He won't even prosecute Jimmy Savile, I'll bet.
Have I got all that right?
You missed the bit where he comes across a lamp that he rubs and finds there is a genie inside who offers him about 300 wishes.
That's high inflation for you. I bet the wishes are just minor fixes too, not like the grand wishes we used to get.
Let's face it, Starmer is rubbish. A grotesque failure. He inherited a party following a catastrophic defeat in 2019, and has done absolutely nothing to turn it around. He is no Tony Blair. Indeed, until recently he was Jeremy Corbyn's biggest fan. However, by sheer fortune, he is likely to end up being PM shortly, but only because of the incompetence of the Tories and a divided opposition.
And, to compound his uselessness, he is now doing everything he can, even before he's PM, to make sure Labour suffer another catastrophic defeat in 2029. Even though it hasn't happened yet, we all know he's a rubbish PM. He won't even prosecute Jimmy Savile, I'll bet.
Have I got all that right?
You missed was a bit of a shagger. And the donkey and Diane Abbott.
I was trying to be brief. Starmer is also responsible for ruining the lives of millions of privately-educated children and their families. If he can do this much harm even before he's PM, just imagine the havoc he'll wreak once in power.
Let's face it, Starmer is rubbish. A grotesque failure. He inherited a party following a catastrophic defeat in 2019, and has done absolutely nothing to turn it around. He is no Tony Blair. Indeed, until recently he was Jeremy Corbyn's biggest fan. However, by sheer fortune, he is likely to end up being PM shortly, but only because of the incompetence of the Tories and a divided opposition.
And, to compound his uselessness, he is now doing everything he can, even before he's PM, to make sure Labour suffer another catastrophic defeat in 2029. Even though it hasn't happened yet, we all know he's a rubbish PM. He won't even prosecute Jimmy Savile, I'll bet.
Let's face it, Starmer is rubbish. A grotesque failure. He inherited a party following a catastrophic defeat in 2019, and has done absolutely nothing to turn it around. He is no Tony Blair. Indeed, until recently he was Jeremy Corbyn's biggest fan. However, by sheer fortune, he is likely to end up being PM shortly, but only because of the incompetence of the Tories and a divided opposition.
And, to compound his uselessness, he is now doing everything he can, even before he's PM, to make sure Labour suffer another catastrophic defeat in 2029. Even though it hasn't happened yet, we all know he's a rubbish PM. He won't even prosecute Jimmy Savile, I'll bet.
Have I got all that right?
I think it is a bit comical that people are already focusing on supposedly inevitable backlash or failure that he will oversee. Sure, that's possible, most government's are a bit crappy so its best to be prepared for that outcome, but 'might do badly' is not much of a revelation, and the public do try to indulge in a bit of optimism about what leaders can do from time to time.
On the broader point, we don't like to give any credit to people, even when it is due. Boris was up against Corbyn, but he still had positives and took actions which magnified the victory that occurred, it wasn't all down to the opposition. If Starmer wins, he will have been greatly aided by what he has faced, but it won't be entirely down to that either.
It is not a reflection on labour particularly or Starmer, I don't see how the next government whoever it is fails to preside over falling living standards. Public services will get worse, tax will go up
Let's face it, Starmer is rubbish. A grotesque failure. He inherited a party following a catastrophic defeat in 2019, and has done absolutely nothing to turn it around. He is no Tony Blair. Indeed, until recently he was Jeremy Corbyn's biggest fan. However, by sheer fortune, he is likely to end up being PM shortly, but only because of the incompetence of the Tories and a divided opposition.
And, to compound his uselessness, he is now doing everything he can, even before he's PM, to make sure Labour suffer another catastrophic defeat in 2029. Even though it hasn't happened yet, we all know he's a rubbish PM. He won't even prosecute Jimmy Savile, I'll bet.
Have I got all that right?
You missed was a bit of a shagger. And the donkey and Diane Abbott.
And eating curry. And drinking beer. At some point. But I can’t remember the timeline.
Irvine Welsh @IrvineWelsh · 42m Argentina lost the opener to Saudi Arabia in the World Cup. We all know how that ended up. Best to keep your powder a little dry and fly under the radar for a bit.
Let's face it, Starmer is rubbish. A grotesque failure. He inherited a party following a catastrophic defeat in 2019, and has done absolutely nothing to turn it around. He is no Tony Blair. Indeed, until recently he was Jeremy Corbyn's biggest fan. However, by sheer fortune, he is likely to end up being PM shortly, but only because of the incompetence of the Tories and a divided opposition.
And, to compound his uselessness, he is now doing everything he can, even before he's PM, to make sure Labour suffer another catastrophic defeat in 2029. Even though it hasn't happened yet, we all know he's a rubbish PM. He won't even prosecute Jimmy Savile, I'll bet.
Have I got all that right?
You missed was a bit of a shagger. And the donkey and Diane Abbott.
And eating curry. And drinking beer. At some point. But I can’t remember the timeline.
He didn't eat curry he had a korma, its the alcohol free version of curry
Prediction: Starmer will be a one-term Prime Minister.
This is not going to be a one term majority. The electorate has become more volatile, but they are not going back to the Tories anytime soon..
You might be right though and Crazy Ed Davey will beat Starmer in 2028 with a Rejoin manifesto.
He's dropped 7 points in 7 days.
His coalition is fraying before he's even in office.
Think about it.
I'd be interested to see your workings there.
Going from the wikipedia table: Techne -1 (44 to 43) YouGov -4 (41 to 37) R+W flat (42 to 42) WeThink -2 (45 to 43) Whitestone -1 (42 to 41) BMG -1 (42 to 41)...
Labour are consistently down, sure. But not by seven. And as long as voters to the right of the Liberal Democrats remain split, it barely matters.
What can you expect from Tories apart from making things up?
Tories. The Tories! The Tories. The Tories.The Tories! The TORIES! THE Tories. THE TORIES. *The Tories* The. Tories. TORIES. Tories. Tories. THE TORIES. *THE TORRRIIEESS!!*
It's all you have.
We don't need much.
I wonder on here occasionally how we got here with left liberal bastions across society, what you would deem woke. How and when did the BBC go from high Tory patricians to metropolitan liberal, to being defended by the left and attacked by the right, how and when health & safety went from mustached NCO types insisting on surnames to wet lefties fussing about conkers. And HR, and all those other things.
Did the left storm the gates, wave their critical race theory, insist it was their world. I don't think so. I think the right's withdrawal from public administration, now reaching its denouement, is instructive.
Step by step the patricians, then the Thatcherites, then the cosplay post-Thatcherites simply withdrew from areas of the public sphere they felt beneath them, were not the thing for a right leaning person to do. If state spending was bad, what was the point of actually running, directing, administering things when in office. Why govern at all? It is beneath you.
And the point of Starmer is simply this and the Labour manifesto says nothing it it doesn't say this - we will take administration seriously and that is differentiation enough.
I don't know if the Conservative party has a way back from recusing itself from government in such a flamboyant way, with not even the modest depth of Starmer to call upon. What does this revived Tory party look like and where does it come from.
I think you are right. Conservatives have withdrawn from the institutions of state.
That's been going on for ages.
Must find my copy of Alan Clark's "The Tories". Two points I remember from it. One is the comment that every Conservative leader ends up hating the party they led. (And that was before Hague, IDS, Howard, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak.) The other was that Thatcher did have an opportunity in the mid to late 80s to get the public sector intelligensia/professionals on side. Don't remember the details, and I bet the book is now too well hidden. But The Lady had that chance, but she blew it.
Cameron managed to get some sections of the public sector onside. In 2010 he won teachers and doctors.
Public services are almost intrinsically small c conservative. Teachers, health professionals, police, prisons, civil service are intrinsically reluctant to change. The big C Conservatives are actively hostile to them.
Isn't is simply a bread and butter issue? Labour Governments have tended to pay public servants more, fund their organisations more generously, and employ more of them. Conservative Governments have tended to tax less. So more private sector workers vote Tory, more public sector ones vote Labour. Cultures have grown up around both habits, but the basics of self interest remain the same. The Wet Tories' great talent has been to tax and spend as much as Labour, whilst being so unlikeable that they have failed to get any public sector support for it.
The Tories, as of now, tax heavily to bung it back to their core vote, pay for debt and I guess to try to patch the various holes in society their wrongheaded austerity drive and a plethora of terrible policies (not helped by their ideology staggering around like a drunk on a ferry for the last 8 years) across the board has bequeathed us.
Yes, there is Ukraine and especially Covid. But as @dixiedean notes as an excellent example, they have simply made the state of SEN in schools flatly worse, through both funding *and* sclerotic, policy blundering. Meanwhile the actual professionals continue trying to do their best with what they have, in spite of everything. See also health, justice (especially justice!) and much more, not to mention the interdependencies of these public services and the knock-on effects they have on each other.
Enough. 14 years and the country is not in a better place, not by a long chalk, nor by the measures of those on the left *or* the right.
Prediction: Starmer will be a one-term Prime Minister.
Possible. In 2019 Johnson was master of all he surveyed. He didn't even last one term.
A much more flawed character. Starmer is far more organised and capable.
Actually I could see Starmer "going on and on", to quote another prime minister he strangely resembles.
But he can't. He's 61.
Konrad Adenauer, in my opinion the greatest of all post war Western leaders was 73 when he became Federal Chancellor of Germany and went on for another fourteen years. Admittedly he was senile by the end.
Somewhat different circumstances.
At 61 Starmer could realistically last until he was 73 the age at which Adenauer started his long term in office, during which he effectively invented West Germany, brought into being the organisation that would become the European Union, revitalised the NATO organisation and still had the energy to oversee an "economic miracle".
I have no idea whether Starmer will make it past the subsequent election but I don't think age is of itself a barrier.
Let's face it, Starmer is rubbish. A grotesque failure. He inherited a party following a catastrophic defeat in 2019, and has done absolutely nothing to turn it around. He is no Tony Blair. Indeed, until recently he was Jeremy Corbyn's biggest fan. However, by sheer fortune, he is likely to end up being PM shortly, but only because of the incompetence of the Tories and a divided opposition.
And, to compound his uselessness, he is now doing everything he can, even before he's PM, to make sure Labour suffer another catastrophic defeat in 2029. Even though it hasn't happened yet, we all know he's a rubbish PM. He won't even prosecute Jimmy Savile, I'll bet.
Have I got all that right?
You missed was a bit of a shagger. And the donkey and Diane Abbott.
And eating curry. And drinking beer. At some point. But I can’t remember the timeline.
He didn't eat curry he had a korma, its the alcohol free version of curry
Let's face it, Starmer is rubbish. A grotesque failure. He inherited a party following a catastrophic defeat in 2019, and has done absolutely nothing to turn it around. He is no Tony Blair. Indeed, until recently he was Jeremy Corbyn's biggest fan. However, by sheer fortune, he is likely to end up being PM shortly, but only because of the incompetence of the Tories and a divided opposition.
And, to compound his uselessness, he is now doing everything he can, even before he's PM, to make sure Labour suffer another catastrophic defeat in 2029. Even though it hasn't happened yet, we all know he's a rubbish PM. He won't even prosecute Jimmy Savile, I'll bet.
Have I got all that right?
You missed was a bit of a shagger. And the donkey and Diane Abbott.
And eating curry. And drinking beer. At some point. But I can’t remember the timeline.
He didn't eat curry he had a korma, its the alcohol free version of curry
Did he actually have a Korma?
I actually have no idea admittedly I assumed so when people started calling him sir keir korma
Let's face it, Starmer is rubbish. A grotesque failure. He inherited a party following a catastrophic defeat in 2019, and has done absolutely nothing to turn it around. He is no Tony Blair. Indeed, until recently he was Jeremy Corbyn's biggest fan. However, by sheer fortune, he is likely to end up being PM shortly, but only because of the incompetence of the Tories and a divided opposition.
And, to compound his uselessness, he is now doing everything he can, even before he's PM, to make sure Labour suffer another catastrophic defeat in 2029. Even though it hasn't happened yet, we all know he's a rubbish PM. He won't even prosecute Jimmy Savile, I'll bet.
Have I got all that right?
I think it is a bit comical that people are already focusing on supposedly inevitable backlash or failure that he will oversee. Sure, that's possible, most government's are a bit crappy so its best to be prepared for that outcome, but 'might do badly' is not much of a revelation, and the public do try to indulge in a bit of optimism about what leaders can do from time to time.
On the broader point, we don't like to give any credit to people, even when it is due. Boris was up against Corbyn, but he still had positives and took actions which magnified the victory that occurred, it wasn't all down to the opposition. If Starmer wins, he will have been greatly aided by what he has faced, but it won't be entirely down to that either.
It is not a reflection on labour particularly or Starmer, I don't see how the next government whoever it is fails to preside over falling living standards. Public services will get worse, tax will go up
Oh, there's some severe issues to address which, politically and practically, will be very difficult to address. A misstep and a backlash is a possibility. But there is a difference between raising that possibility and the reasons for it, and if someone were to present it as some certainty which others would be fools not to agree with. I just think some copium online is seizing on the idea as a bitter way of dealing with potential defeat.
Let's face it, Starmer is rubbish. A grotesque failure. He inherited a party following a catastrophic defeat in 2019, and has done absolutely nothing to turn it around. He is no Tony Blair. Indeed, until recently he was Jeremy Corbyn's biggest fan. However, by sheer fortune, he is likely to end up being PM shortly, but only because of the incompetence of the Tories and a divided opposition.
And, to compound his uselessness, he is now doing everything he can, even before he's PM, to make sure Labour suffer another catastrophic defeat in 2029. Even though it hasn't happened yet, we all know he's a rubbish PM. He won't even prosecute Jimmy Savile, I'll bet.
Have I got all that right?
You missed was a bit of a shagger. And the donkey and Diane Abbott.
And eating curry. And drinking beer. At some point. But I can’t remember the timeline.
He didn't eat curry he had a korma, its the alcohol free version of curry
Remember this being discussed a lot on here at the time, but after 15 years Jan Moir clears up *that* column about the late Stephen Gately, via a hit piece on Wes Streeting
Thankfully Scotland and Ruth Davidson stopped us getting PM Corbyn.
Betting on a Tory majority after the exit poll in 2015 was very much betting against the exit poll.
It wasn't, given the error range on the exit was circa 15 seats, it was in Tory majority range.
You could say the same about 2017 too.
Interesting that when the 2017 exit poll came out, instinctively I thought that if it was going to be wrong, it wouldn’t be wrong in the Tories’ favour.
One thing that gets overlooked is that the exit poll keeps on getting updated throughout the night as the results come in. IIRC after Nuneaton Sir John said a Tory majority was looking likely.
1992 was the extreme example of that. The first forecast had a hung Parliament. It wasn't until the early hours that a Tory majority was forecast and it then grew and grew into the next day.
This is going to be a tough one for the exit poll, especially if Reform are anywhere near where they are now.
Let's face it, Starmer is rubbish. A grotesque failure. He inherited a party following a catastrophic defeat in 2019, and has done absolutely nothing to turn it around. He is no Tony Blair. Indeed, until recently he was Jeremy Corbyn's biggest fan. However, by sheer fortune, he is likely to end up being PM shortly, but only because of the incompetence of the Tories and a divided opposition.
And, to compound his uselessness, he is now doing everything he can, even before he's PM, to make sure Labour suffer another catastrophic defeat in 2029. Even though it hasn't happened yet, we all know he's a rubbish PM. He won't even prosecute Jimmy Savile, I'll bet.
Have I got all that right?
I think it is a bit comical that people are already focusing on supposedly inevitable backlash or failure that he will oversee. Sure, that's possible, most government's are a bit crappy so its best to be prepared for that outcome, but 'might do badly' is not much of a revelation, and the public do try to indulge in a bit of optimism about what leaders can do from time to time.
On the broader point, we don't like to give any credit to people, even when it is due. Boris was up against Corbyn, but he still had positives and took actions which magnified the victory that occurred, it wasn't all down to the opposition. If Starmer wins, he will have been greatly aided by what he has faced, but it won't be entirely down to that either.
It is not a reflection on labour particularly or Starmer, I don't see how the next government whoever it is fails to preside over falling living standards. Public services will get worse, tax will go up
Oh, there's some severe issues to address which, politically and practically, will be very difficult to address. A misstep and a backlash is a possibility. But there is a difference between raising that possibility and the reasons for it, and if someone were to present it as some certainty which others would be fools not to agree with. I just think some copium online is seizing on the idea as a bitter way of dealing with potential defeat.
I don't think any current party has an answer, I also don't think the electorate in 5 years time will be in a mood to listen to those who fail. I predict either a radical left or right government after
Let's face it, Starmer is rubbish. A grotesque failure. He inherited a party following a catastrophic defeat in 2019, and has done absolutely nothing to turn it around. He is no Tony Blair. Indeed, until recently he was Jeremy Corbyn's biggest fan. However, by sheer fortune, he is likely to end up being PM shortly, but only because of the incompetence of the Tories and a divided opposition.
And, to compound his uselessness, he is now doing everything he can, even before he's PM, to make sure Labour suffer another catastrophic defeat in 2029. Even though it hasn't happened yet, we all know he's a rubbish PM. He won't even prosecute Jimmy Savile, I'll bet.
Have I got all that right?
You missed was a bit of a shagger. And the donkey and Diane Abbott.
And eating curry. And drinking beer. At some point. But I can’t remember the timeline.
He didn't eat curry he had a korma, its the alcohol free version of curry
Korma is a very complex dish to make from scratch. And is a classic, but it needs to be cooked properly. Get it right and it’s fragrant and utterly delicious. But it’s chemistry. And a bit of culinarily magic.
Was it ever revealed which curry Sir Keir ate though? I don’t remember that detail.
Let's face it, Starmer is rubbish. A grotesque failure. He inherited a party following a catastrophic defeat in 2019, and has done absolutely nothing to turn it around. He is no Tony Blair. Indeed, until recently he was Jeremy Corbyn's biggest fan. However, by sheer fortune, he is likely to end up being PM shortly, but only because of the incompetence of the Tories and a divided opposition.
And, to compound his uselessness, he is now doing everything he can, even before he's PM, to make sure Labour suffer another catastrophic defeat in 2029. Even though it hasn't happened yet, we all know he's a rubbish PM. He won't even prosecute Jimmy Savile, I'll bet.
Have I got all that right?
You missed was a bit of a shagger. And the donkey and Diane Abbott.
And eating curry. And drinking beer. At some point. But I can’t remember the timeline.
He didn't eat curry he had a korma, its the alcohol free version of curry
Did he actually have a Korma?
I’m not sure it was ever revealed. I would love to know, chiefly because I’m a big fan of Indian food.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 59m There's no point debating with Farage. He is what he is, he'll get the vote he gets. He's a vibe - a brainstem feeling of resentment about smoking in pubs and classic cars and silver service. You might as well debate a Hamlet ad from the 80s.
Let's face it, Starmer is rubbish. A grotesque failure. He inherited a party following a catastrophic defeat in 2019, and has done absolutely nothing to turn it around. He is no Tony Blair. Indeed, until recently he was Jeremy Corbyn's biggest fan. However, by sheer fortune, he is likely to end up being PM shortly, but only because of the incompetence of the Tories and a divided opposition.
And, to compound his uselessness, he is now doing everything he can, even before he's PM, to make sure Labour suffer another catastrophic defeat in 2029. Even though it hasn't happened yet, we all know he's a rubbish PM. He won't even prosecute Jimmy Savile, I'll bet.
Have I got all that right?
I think it is a bit comical that people are already focusing on supposedly inevitable backlash or failure that he will oversee. Sure, that's possible, most government's are a bit crappy so its best to be prepared for that outcome, but 'might do badly' is not much of a revelation, and the public do try to indulge in a bit of optimism about what leaders can do from time to time.
On the broader point, we don't like to give any credit to people, even when it is due. Boris was up against Corbyn, but he still had positives and took actions which magnified the victory that occurred, it wasn't all down to the opposition. If Starmer wins, he will have been greatly aided by what he has faced, but it won't be entirely down to that either.
It is not a reflection on labour particularly or Starmer, I don't see how the next government whoever it is fails to preside over falling living standards. Public services will get worse, tax will go up
Oh, there's some severe issues to address which, politically and practically, will be very difficult to address. A misstep and a backlash is a possibility. But there is a difference between raising that possibility and the reasons for it, and if someone were to present it as some certainty which others would be fools not to agree with. I just think some copium online is seizing on the idea as a bitter way of dealing with potential defeat.
I don't think any current party has an answer, I also don't think the electorate in 5 years time will be in a mood to listen to those who fail. I predict either a radical left or right government after
We flatter to deceive on the radical politics in this country it seems.
Managed declinism of a different variety will be the way I expect.
Thankfully Scotland and Ruth Davidson stopped us getting PM Corbyn.
Betting on a Tory majority after the exit poll in 2015 was very much betting against the exit poll.
It wasn't, given the error range on the exit was circa 15 seats, it was in Tory majority range.
You could say the same about 2017 too.
Interesting that when the 2017 exit poll came out, instinctively I thought that if it was going to be wrong, it wouldn’t be wrong in the Tories’ favour.
One thing that gets overlooked is that the exit poll keeps on getting updated throughout the night as the results come in. IIRC after Nuneaton Sir John said a Tory majority was looking likely.
1992 was the extreme example of that. The first forecast had a hung Parliament. It wasn't until the early hours that a Tory majority was forecast and it then grew and grew into the next day.
This is going to be a tough one for the exit poll, especially if Reform are anywhere near where they are now.
It’s a weird election. Labours share is doing what I expected - gradually drifting down. But the Tories are still sinking and Reform are flying. And yet. I cannot believe that Reform will match their current polling. I just can’t. It’s UKIP all over agin. And yet. So the bongs, followed by the exit poll are going to be one of the highlights of my year, sad though that sounds.
Let's face it, Starmer is rubbish. A grotesque failure. He inherited a party following a catastrophic defeat in 2019, and has done absolutely nothing to turn it around. He is no Tony Blair. Indeed, until recently he was Jeremy Corbyn's biggest fan. However, by sheer fortune, he is likely to end up being PM shortly, but only because of the incompetence of the Tories and a divided opposition.
And, to compound his uselessness, he is now doing everything he can, even before he's PM, to make sure Labour suffer another catastrophic defeat in 2029. Even though it hasn't happened yet, we all know he's a rubbish PM. He won't even prosecute Jimmy Savile, I'll bet.
Have I got all that right?
You missed was a bit of a shagger. And the donkey and Diane Abbott.
And eating curry. And drinking beer. At some point. But I can’t remember the timeline.
He didn't eat curry he had a korma, its the alcohol free version of curry
Did he actually have a Korma?
He'd better have, or he's lost my vote.
Just kidding, I'm a jalfrezi man.
A proper korma is sublime. But there’s lots of mediocre slop out there. Cooking the real deal at home is a joy. But assign a full bottle of Gewürztraminer (for the chef) and 1-2 lazy hours in the kitchen.
Let's face it, Starmer is rubbish. A grotesque failure. He inherited a party following a catastrophic defeat in 2019, and has done absolutely nothing to turn it around. He is no Tony Blair. Indeed, until recently he was Jeremy Corbyn's biggest fan. However, by sheer fortune, he is likely to end up being PM shortly, but only because of the incompetence of the Tories and a divided opposition.
And, to compound his uselessness, he is now doing everything he can, even before he's PM, to make sure Labour suffer another catastrophic defeat in 2029. Even though it hasn't happened yet, we all know he's a rubbish PM. He won't even prosecute Jimmy Savile, I'll bet.
Have I got all that right?
You missed was a bit of a shagger. And the donkey and Diane Abbott.
And eating curry. And drinking beer. At some point. But I can’t remember the timeline.
He didn't eat curry he had a korma, its the alcohol free version of curry
Did he actually have a Korma?
Sir Beer Jalfrezie doesn't work as a Johnson mockery to trot out at PMQs
Let's face it, Starmer is rubbish. A grotesque failure. He inherited a party following a catastrophic defeat in 2019, and has done absolutely nothing to turn it around. He is no Tony Blair. Indeed, until recently he was Jeremy Corbyn's biggest fan. However, by sheer fortune, he is likely to end up being PM shortly, but only because of the incompetence of the Tories and a divided opposition.
And, to compound his uselessness, he is now doing everything he can, even before he's PM, to make sure Labour suffer another catastrophic defeat in 2029. Even though it hasn't happened yet, we all know he's a rubbish PM. He won't even prosecute Jimmy Savile, I'll bet.
Have I got all that right?
You missed was a bit of a shagger. And the donkey and Diane Abbott.
And eating curry. And drinking beer. At some point. But I can’t remember the timeline.
He didn't eat curry he had a korma, its the alcohol free version of curry
Korma is a very complex dish to make from scratch. And is a classic, but it needs to be cooked properly. Get it right and it’s fragrant and utterly delicious. But it’s chemistry. And a bit of culinarily magic.
Was it ever revealed which curry Sir Keir ate though? I don’t remember that detail.
I do not deny Korma can be delicious, merely when people have a curry they imagine hot and spicy and a korma is not that....as I said for most its the alcohol free version of curry....I suspect most don't class much below a jalfrezi as curry
Let's face it, Starmer is rubbish. A grotesque failure. He inherited a party following a catastrophic defeat in 2019, and has done absolutely nothing to turn it around. He is no Tony Blair. Indeed, until recently he was Jeremy Corbyn's biggest fan. However, by sheer fortune, he is likely to end up being PM shortly, but only because of the incompetence of the Tories and a divided opposition.
And, to compound his uselessness, he is now doing everything he can, even before he's PM, to make sure Labour suffer another catastrophic defeat in 2029. Even though it hasn't happened yet, we all know he's a rubbish PM. He won't even prosecute Jimmy Savile, I'll bet.
Have I got all that right?
Starmer will become PM more by the Tories unpopularity and division than any great love for him a la Blair 1997. He has reformed his party much as Kinnock did but lacks Blair's charisma and Kinnock's oratory.
Labour will hope however he proves to be more Wilson or Attlee than Brown or Callaghan and can sustain a reasonable sustained period of Labour government while shifting the country economically and/or culturally further to the left
Prediction: Starmer will be a one-term Prime Minister.
This is not going to be a one term majority. The electorate has become more volatile, but they are not going back to the Tories anytime soon..
You might be right though and Crazy Ed Davey will beat Starmer in 2028 with a Rejoin manifesto.
He's dropped 7 points in 7 days.
His coalition is fraying before he's even in office.
Think about it.
I'd be interested to see your workings there.
Going from the wikipedia table: Techne -1 (44 to 43) YouGov -4 (41 to 37) R+W flat (42 to 42) WeThink -2 (45 to 43) Whitestone -1 (42 to 41) BMG -1 (42 to 41)...
Labour are consistently down, sure. But not by seven. And as long as voters to the right of the Liberal Democrats remain split, it barely matters.
What can you expect from Tories apart from making things up?
Tories. The Tories! The Tories. The Tories.The Tories! The TORIES! THE Tories. THE TORIES. *The Tories* The. Tories. TORIES. Tories. Tories. THE TORIES. *THE TORRRIIEESS!!*
It's all you have.
We don't need much.
I wonder on here occasionally how we got here with left liberal bastions across society, what you would deem woke. How and when did the BBC go from high Tory patricians to metropolitan liberal, to being defended by the left and attacked by the right, how and when health & safety went from mustached NCO types insisting on surnames to wet lefties fussing about conkers. And HR, and all those other things.
Did the left storm the gates, wave their critical race theory, insist it was their world. I don't think so. I think the right's withdrawal from public administration, now reaching its denouement, is instructive.
Step by step the patricians, then the Thatcherites, then the cosplay post-Thatcherites simply withdrew from areas of the public sphere they felt beneath them, were not the thing for a right leaning person to do. If state spending was bad, what was the point of actually running, directing, administering things when in office. Why govern at all? It is beneath you.
And the point of Starmer is simply this and the Labour manifesto says nothing it it doesn't say this - we will take administration seriously and that is differentiation enough.
I don't know if the Conservative party has a way back from recusing itself from government in such a flamboyant way, with not even the modest depth of Starmer to call upon. What does this revived Tory party look like and where does it come from.
I think remuneration has something to do with it. As the relative pay of the institutions you mention has decreased, they are increasingly staffed by people for whom the vocation compensates for the lack of £. No surprise that they are staffed with woke lefties
Let's face it, Starmer is rubbish. A grotesque failure. He inherited a party following a catastrophic defeat in 2019, and has done absolutely nothing to turn it around. He is no Tony Blair. Indeed, until recently he was Jeremy Corbyn's biggest fan. However, by sheer fortune, he is likely to end up being PM shortly, but only because of the incompetence of the Tories and a divided opposition.
And, to compound his uselessness, he is now doing everything he can, even before he's PM, to make sure Labour suffer another catastrophic defeat in 2029. Even though it hasn't happened yet, we all know he's a rubbish PM. He won't even prosecute Jimmy Savile, I'll bet.
Have I got all that right?
You missed was a bit of a shagger. And the donkey and Diane Abbott.
And eating curry. And drinking beer. At some point. But I can’t remember the timeline.
He didn't eat curry he had a korma, its the alcohol free version of curry
Did he actually have a Korma?
He'd better have, or he's lost my vote.
Just kidding, I'm a jalfrezi man.
A proper korma is sublime. But there’s lots of mediocre slop out there. Cooking the real deal at home is a joy. But assign a full bottle of Gewürztraminer (for the chef) and 1-2 lazy hours in the kitchen.
Gewürztraminer is a good choice for a Korma, most wines are too dry for the intense spiciness.
Prediction: Starmer will be a one-term Prime Minister.
This is not going to be a one term majority. The electorate has become more volatile, but they are not going back to the Tories anytime soon..
You might be right though and Crazy Ed Davey will beat Starmer in 2028 with a Rejoin manifesto.
He's dropped 7 points in 7 days.
His coalition is fraying before he's even in office.
Think about it.
I'd be interested to see your workings there.
Going from the wikipedia table: Techne -1 (44 to 43) YouGov -4 (41 to 37) R+W flat (42 to 42) WeThink -2 (45 to 43) Whitestone -1 (42 to 41) BMG -1 (42 to 41)...
Labour are consistently down, sure. But not by seven. And as long as voters to the right of the Liberal Democrats remain split, it barely matters.
What can you expect from Tories apart from making things up?
Tories. The Tories! The Tories. The Tories.The Tories! The TORIES! THE Tories. THE TORIES. *The Tories* The. Tories. TORIES. Tories. Tories. THE TORIES. *THE TORRRIIEESS!!*
It's all you have.
We don't need much.
I wonder on here occasionally how we got here with left liberal bastions across society, what you would deem woke. How and when did the BBC go from high Tory patricians to metropolitan liberal, to being defended by the left and attacked by the right, how and when health & safety went from mustached NCO types insisting on surnames to wet lefties fussing about conkers. And HR, and all those other things.
Did the left storm the gates, wave their critical race theory, insist it was their world. I don't think so. I think the right's withdrawal from public administration, now reaching its denouement, is instructive.
Step by step the patricians, then the Thatcherites, then the cosplay post-Thatcherites simply withdrew from areas of the public sphere they felt beneath them, were not the thing for a right leaning person to do. If state spending was bad, what was the point of actually running, directing, administering things when in office. Why govern at all? It is beneath you.
And the point of Starmer is simply this and the Labour manifesto says nothing it it doesn't say this - we will take administration seriously and that is differentiation enough.
I don't know if the Conservative party has a way back from recusing itself from government in such a flamboyant way, with not even the modest depth of Starmer to call upon. What does this revived Tory party look like and where does it come from.
Super post. I would add. If you despise, defund and denigrate public services, as lazy, unproductive and overpaid, then the millions who work for them won't even consider voting for you. Let alone vote for you. Cameron won teachers. Teachers!!! In 2010.
Defund public services?
The state of this.
Come work in them. Then we'll talk. State of you. How else would you describe a zero increase in SEN per pupil funding since 2010? That's actual. Not real terms.
How would you describe the highest level of taxation as a % of GDP since the 1960s? You can say that the money given to public services is being poorly deployed - I'd be the first to agree with you. But underfunded THEY AIN'T.
We have huge amounts being spent on debt interest. We have huge amounts being spent on the state pension, because of the demographic transition and the triple lock.
So, yes, you can have high taxation and low spending on public services, at the same time. Well, that's the argument. Can I stand it up with some numbers?
In budget 2024, resource Departmental Expenditure Limits for 2023-4 total £428.9bn. Capital DEL is £98.3bn. That's a total of £527.2bn being spent on "public services" - the rest of government spending being cash transfers (pensions, social security), or debt interest. GDP is £2,687bn for 2023. So total DEL is 19.6% of GDP.
Total DEL for 2009-10 (excluding depreciation as for the 2023-4 figures) is given as £364.7bn in budget 2010. I think GDP for 2009 (not inflation-adjusted) was a total of £1,417.4bn. So total DEL was 25.7% of GDP.
Assuming I haven't made a mistake in my figures (and I did find it hard to find consistent comparable figures, so I might have done!) it looks like there has been a large reduction in spending on "public services" as a % of GDP.
The difference being made up by a large increase in debt interest payments and on cash transfers - mainly the state pension.
Thankfully Scotland and Ruth Davidson stopped us getting PM Corbyn.
Betting on a Tory majority after the exit poll in 2015 was very much betting against the exit poll.
It wasn't, given the error range on the exit was circa 15 seats, it was in Tory majority range.
You could say the same about 2017 too.
Interesting that when the 2017 exit poll came out, instinctively I thought that if it was going to be wrong, it wouldn’t be wrong in the Tories’ favour.
One thing that gets overlooked is that the exit poll keeps on getting updated throughout the night as the results come in. IIRC after Nuneaton Sir John said a Tory majority was looking likely.
1992 was the extreme example of that. The first forecast had a hung Parliament. It wasn't until the early hours that a Tory majority was forecast and it then grew and grew into the next day.
This is going to be a tough one for the exit poll, especially if Reform are anywhere near where they are now.
It’s a weird election. Labours share is doing what I expected - gradually drifting down. But the Tories are still sinking and Reform are flying. And yet. I cannot believe that Reform will match their current polling. I just can’t. It’s UKIP all over agin. And yet. So the bongs, followed by the exit poll are going to be one of the highlights of my year, sad though that sounds.
Yes, it does seem incredible Reform could even get close to what they are currently polling. I'd not be shocked if they do not.
But I do think their rise will be real even to prevent even the modest boost the Tories were hoping for to stave off an embarrassing defeat, which may well have occurred with a better campaign and less Reform involvement.
Let's face it, Starmer is rubbish. A grotesque failure. He inherited a party following a catastrophic defeat in 2019, and has done absolutely nothing to turn it around. He is no Tony Blair. Indeed, until recently he was Jeremy Corbyn's biggest fan. However, by sheer fortune, he is likely to end up being PM shortly, but only because of the incompetence of the Tories and a divided opposition.
And, to compound his uselessness, he is now doing everything he can, even before he's PM, to make sure Labour suffer another catastrophic defeat in 2029. Even though it hasn't happened yet, we all know he's a rubbish PM. He won't even prosecute Jimmy Savile, I'll bet.
Have I got all that right?
You missed was a bit of a shagger. And the donkey and Diane Abbott.
And eating curry. And drinking beer. At some point. But I can’t remember the timeline.
He didn't eat curry he had a korma, its the alcohol free version of curry
Did he actually have a Korma?
Sir Beer Jalfrezie doesn't work as a Johnson mockery to trot out at PMQs
Prediction: Starmer will be a one-term Prime Minister.
This is not going to be a one term majority. The electorate has become more volatile, but they are not going back to the Tories anytime soon..
You might be right though and Crazy Ed Davey will beat Starmer in 2028 with a Rejoin manifesto.
He's dropped 7 points in 7 days.
His coalition is fraying before he's even in office.
Think about it.
I'd be interested to see your workings there.
Going from the wikipedia table: Techne -1 (44 to 43) YouGov -4 (41 to 37) R+W flat (42 to 42) WeThink -2 (45 to 43) Whitestone -1 (42 to 41) BMG -1 (42 to 41)...
Labour are consistently down, sure. But not by seven. And as long as voters to the right of the Liberal Democrats remain split, it barely matters.
What can you expect from Tories apart from making things up?
Tories. The Tories! The Tories. The Tories.The Tories! The TORIES! THE Tories. THE TORIES. *The Tories* The. Tories. TORIES. Tories. Tories. THE TORIES. *THE TORRRIIEESS!!*
It's all you have.
We don't need much.
I wonder on here occasionally how we got here with left liberal bastions across society, what you would deem woke. How and when did the BBC go from high Tory patricians to metropolitan liberal, to being defended by the left and attacked by the right, how and when health & safety went from mustached NCO types insisting on surnames to wet lefties fussing about conkers. And HR, and all those other things.
Did the left storm the gates, wave their critical race theory, insist it was their world. I don't think so. I think the right's withdrawal from public administration, now reaching its denouement, is instructive.
Step by step the patricians, then the Thatcherites, then the cosplay post-Thatcherites simply withdrew from areas of the public sphere they felt beneath them, were not the thing for a right leaning person to do. If state spending was bad, what was the point of actually running, directing, administering things when in office. Why govern at all? It is beneath you.
And the point of Starmer is simply this and the Labour manifesto says nothing it it doesn't say this - we will take administration seriously and that is differentiation enough.
I don't know if the Conservative party has a way back from recusing itself from government in such a flamboyant way, with not even the modest depth of Starmer to call upon. What does this revived Tory party look like and where does it come from.
I think remuneration has something to do with it. As the relative pay of the institutions you mention has decreased, they are increasingly staffed by people for whom the vocation compensates for the lack of £. No surprise that they are staffed with woke lefties
You've encapsulated the problem neatly. The notion of public service used to be attractive to Tories as well as us lefties. So what you're saying is that now everybody other than 'woke lefties' is just motivated by money.
Prediction: Starmer will be a one-term Prime Minister.
This is not going to be a one term majority. The electorate has become more volatile, but they are not going back to the Tories anytime soon..
You might be right though and Crazy Ed Davey will beat Starmer in 2028 with a Rejoin manifesto.
He's dropped 7 points in 7 days.
His coalition is fraying before he's even in office.
Think about it.
I'd be interested to see your workings there.
Going from the wikipedia table: Techne -1 (44 to 43) YouGov -4 (41 to 37) R+W flat (42 to 42) WeThink -2 (45 to 43) Whitestone -1 (42 to 41) BMG -1 (42 to 41)...
Labour are consistently down, sure. But not by seven. And as long as voters to the right of the Liberal Democrats remain split, it barely matters.
What can you expect from Tories apart from making things up?
Tories. The Tories! The Tories. The Tories.The Tories! The TORIES! THE Tories. THE TORIES. *The Tories* The. Tories. TORIES. Tories. Tories. THE TORIES. *THE TORRRIIEESS!!*
It's all you have.
We don't need much.
I wonder on here occasionally how we got here with left liberal bastions across society, what you would deem woke. How and when did the BBC go from high Tory patricians to metropolitan liberal, to being defended by the left and attacked by the right, how and when health & safety went from mustached NCO types insisting on surnames to wet lefties fussing about conkers. And HR, and all those other things.
Did the left storm the gates, wave their critical race theory, insist it was their world. I don't think so. I think the right's withdrawal from public administration, now reaching its denouement, is instructive.
Step by step the patricians, then the Thatcherites, then the cosplay post-Thatcherites simply withdrew from areas of the public sphere they felt beneath them, were not the thing for a right leaning person to do. If state spending was bad, what was the point of actually running, directing, administering things when in office. Why govern at all? It is beneath you.
And the point of Starmer is simply this and the Labour manifesto says nothing it it doesn't say this - we will take administration seriously and that is differentiation enough.
I don't know if the Conservative party has a way back from recusing itself from government in such a flamboyant way, with not even the modest depth of Starmer to call upon. What does this revived Tory party look like and where does it come from.
Super post. I would add. If you despise, defund and denigrate public services, as lazy, unproductive and overpaid, then the millions who work for them won't even consider voting for you. Let alone vote for you. Cameron won teachers. Teachers!!! In 2010.
Defund public services?
The state of this.
Come work in them. Then we'll talk. State of you. How else would you describe a zero increase in SEN per pupil funding since 2010? That's actual. Not real terms.
How would you describe the highest level of taxation as a % of GDP since the 1960s? You can say that the money given to public services is being poorly deployed - I'd be the first to agree with you. But underfunded THEY AIN'T.
We have huge amounts being spent on debt interest. We have huge amounts being spent on the state pension, because of the demographic transition and the triple lock.
So, yes, you can have high taxation and low spending on public services, at the same time. Well, that's the argument. Can I stand it up with some numbers?
In budget 2024, resource Departmental Expenditure Limits for 2023-4 total £428.9bn. Capital DEL is £98.3bn. That's a total of £527.2bn being spent on "public services" - the rest of government spending being cash transfers (pensions, social security), or debt interest. GDP is £2,687bn for 2023. So total DEL is 19.6% of GDP.
Total DEL for 2009-10 (excluding depreciation as for the 2023-4 figures) is given as £364.7bn in budget 2010. I think GDP for 2009 (not inflation-adjusted) was a total of £1,417.4bn. So total DEL was 25.7% of GDP.
Assuming I haven't made a mistake in my figures (and I did find it hard to find consistent comparable figures, so I might have done!) it looks like there has been a large reduction in spending on "public services" as a % of GDP.
The difference being made up by a large increase in debt interest payments and on cash transfers - mainly the state pension.
Prediction: Starmer will be a one-term Prime Minister.
This is not going to be a one term majority. The electorate has become more volatile, but they are not going back to the Tories anytime soon..
You might be right though and Crazy Ed Davey will beat Starmer in 2028 with a Rejoin manifesto.
He's dropped 7 points in 7 days.
His coalition is fraying before he's even in office.
Think about it.
I'd be interested to see your workings there.
Going from the wikipedia table: Techne -1 (44 to 43) YouGov -4 (41 to 37) R+W flat (42 to 42) WeThink -2 (45 to 43) Whitestone -1 (42 to 41) BMG -1 (42 to 41)...
Labour are consistently down, sure. But not by seven. And as long as voters to the right of the Liberal Democrats remain split, it barely matters.
What can you expect from Tories apart from making things up?
Tories. The Tories! The Tories. The Tories.The Tories! The TORIES! THE Tories. THE TORIES. *The Tories* The. Tories. TORIES. Tories. Tories. THE TORIES. *THE TORRRIIEESS!!*
It's all you have.
We don't need much.
I wonder on here occasionally how we got here with left liberal bastions across society, what you would deem woke. How and when did the BBC go from high Tory patricians to metropolitan liberal, to being defended by the left and attacked by the right, how and when health & safety went from mustached NCO types insisting on surnames to wet lefties fussing about conkers. And HR, and all those other things.
Did the left storm the gates, wave their critical race theory, insist it was their world. I don't think so. I think the right's withdrawal from public administration, now reaching its denouement, is instructive.
Step by step the patricians, then the Thatcherites, then the cosplay post-Thatcherites simply withdrew from areas of the public sphere they felt beneath them, were not the thing for a right leaning person to do. If state spending was bad, what was the point of actually running, directing, administering things when in office. Why govern at all? It is beneath you.
And the point of Starmer is simply this and the Labour manifesto says nothing it it doesn't say this - we will take administration seriously and that is differentiation enough.
I don't know if the Conservative party has a way back from recusing itself from government in such a flamboyant way, with not even the modest depth of Starmer to call upon. What does this revived Tory party look like and where does it come from.
Super post. I would add. If you despise, defund and denigrate public services, as lazy, unproductive and overpaid, then the millions who work for them won't even consider voting for you. Let alone vote for you. Cameron won teachers. Teachers!!! In 2010.
Defund public services?
The state of this.
Come work in them. Then we'll talk. State of you. How else would you describe a zero increase in SEN per pupil funding since 2010? That's actual. Not real terms.
How would you describe the highest level of taxation as a % of GDP since the 1960s? You can say that the money given to public services is being poorly deployed - I'd be the first to agree with you. But underfunded THEY AIN'T.
We have huge amounts being spent on debt interest. We have huge amounts being spent on the state pension, because of the demographic transition and the triple lock.
So, yes, you can have high taxation and low spending on public services, at the same time. Well, that's the argument. Can I stand it up with some numbers?
In budget 2024, resource Departmental Expenditure Limits for 2023-4 total £428.9bn. Capital DEL is £98.3bn. That's a total of £527.2bn being spent on "public services" - the rest of government spending being cash transfers (pensions, social security), or debt interest. GDP is £2,687bn for 2023. So total DEL is 19.6% of GDP.
Total DEL for 2009-10 (excluding depreciation as for the 2023-4 figures) is given as £364.7bn in budget 2010. I think GDP for 2009 (not inflation-adjusted) was a total of £1,417.4bn. So total DEL was 25.7% of GDP.
Assuming I haven't made a mistake in my figures (and I did find it hard to find consistent comparable figures, so I might have done!) it looks like there has been a large reduction in spending on "public services" as a % of GDP.
The difference being made up by a large increase in debt interest payments and on cash transfers - mainly the state pension.
Let's face it, Starmer is rubbish. A grotesque failure. He inherited a party following a catastrophic defeat in 2019, and has done absolutely nothing to turn it around. He is no Tony Blair. Indeed, until recently he was Jeremy Corbyn's biggest fan. However, by sheer fortune, he is likely to end up being PM shortly, but only because of the incompetence of the Tories and a divided opposition.
And, to compound his uselessness, he is now doing everything he can, even before he's PM, to make sure Labour suffer another catastrophic defeat in 2029. Even though it hasn't happened yet, we all know he's a rubbish PM. He won't even prosecute Jimmy Savile, I'll bet.
Have I got all that right?
You missed was a bit of a shagger. And the donkey and Diane Abbott.
And eating curry. And drinking beer. At some point. But I can’t remember the timeline.
He didn't eat curry he had a korma, its the alcohol free version of curry
Did he actually have a Korma?
Sir Beer Jalfrezie doesn't work as a Johnson mockery to trot out at PMQs
Let's face it, Starmer is rubbish. A grotesque failure. He inherited a party following a catastrophic defeat in 2019, and has done absolutely nothing to turn it around. He is no Tony Blair. Indeed, until recently he was Jeremy Corbyn's biggest fan. However, by sheer fortune, he is likely to end up being PM shortly, but only because of the incompetence of the Tories and a divided opposition.
And, to compound his uselessness, he is now doing everything he can, even before he's PM, to make sure Labour suffer another catastrophic defeat in 2029. Even though it hasn't happened yet, we all know he's a rubbish PM. He won't even prosecute Jimmy Savile, I'll bet.
Have I got all that right?
Starmer will become PM more by the Tories unpopularity and division than any great love for him a la Blair 1997. He has reformed his party much as Kinnock did but lacks Blair's charisma and Kinnock's oratory.
Labour will hope however he proves to be more Wilson or Attlee than Brown or Callaghan and can sustain a reasonable sustained period of Labour government while shifting the country economically and/or culturally further to the left
Fair comment, but I think you underrate him a bit - he has talents that neither Blair nor Kinnock had, other than charisma or oratory. And he's improving - he was very good in a challenging interview with Nick Robinson on BBC earlier this evening.
Prediction: Starmer will be a one-term Prime Minister.
This is not going to be a one term majority. The electorate has become more volatile, but they are not going back to the Tories anytime soon..
You might be right though and Crazy Ed Davey will beat Starmer in 2028 with a Rejoin manifesto.
He's dropped 7 points in 7 days.
His coalition is fraying before he's even in office.
Think about it.
I'd be interested to see your workings there.
Going from the wikipedia table: Techne -1 (44 to 43) YouGov -4 (41 to 37) R+W flat (42 to 42) WeThink -2 (45 to 43) Whitestone -1 (42 to 41) BMG -1 (42 to 41)...
Labour are consistently down, sure. But not by seven. And as long as voters to the right of the Liberal Democrats remain split, it barely matters.
What can you expect from Tories apart from making things up?
Tories. The Tories! The Tories. The Tories.The Tories! The TORIES! THE Tories. THE TORIES. *The Tories* The. Tories. TORIES. Tories. Tories. THE TORIES. *THE TORRRIIEESS!!*
It's all you have.
We don't need much.
I wonder on here occasionally how we got here with left liberal bastions across society, what you would deem woke. How and when did the BBC go from high Tory patricians to metropolitan liberal, to being defended by the left and attacked by the right, how and when health & safety went from mustached NCO types insisting on surnames to wet lefties fussing about conkers. And HR, and all those other things.
Did the left storm the gates, wave their critical race theory, insist it was their world. I don't think so. I think the right's withdrawal from public administration, now reaching its denouement, is instructive.
Step by step the patricians, then the Thatcherites, then the cosplay post-Thatcherites simply withdrew from areas of the public sphere they felt beneath them, were not the thing for a right leaning person to do. If state spending was bad, what was the point of actually running, directing, administering things when in office. Why govern at all? It is beneath you.
And the point of Starmer is simply this and the Labour manifesto says nothing it it doesn't say this - we will take administration seriously and that is differentiation enough.
I don't know if the Conservative party has a way back from recusing itself from government in such a flamboyant way, with not even the modest depth of Starmer to call upon. What does this revived Tory party look like and where does it come from.
Super post. I would add. If you despise, defund and denigrate public services, as lazy, unproductive and overpaid, then the millions who work for them won't even consider voting for you. Let alone vote for you. Cameron won teachers. Teachers!!! In 2010.
Defund public services?
The state of this.
Come work in them. Then we'll talk. State of you. How else would you describe a zero increase in SEN per pupil funding since 2010? That's actual. Not real terms.
How would you describe the highest level of taxation as a % of GDP since the 1960s? You can say that the money given to public services is being poorly deployed - I'd be the first to agree with you. But underfunded THEY AIN'T.
We have huge amounts being spent on debt interest. We have huge amounts being spent on the state pension, because of the demographic transition and the triple lock.
So, yes, you can have high taxation and low spending on public services, at the same time. Well, that's the argument. Can I stand it up with some numbers?
In budget 2024, resource Departmental Expenditure Limits for 2023-4 total £428.9bn. Capital DEL is £98.3bn. That's a total of £527.2bn being spent on "public services" - the rest of government spending being cash transfers (pensions, social security), or debt interest. GDP is £2,687bn for 2023. So total DEL is 19.6% of GDP.
Total DEL for 2009-10 (excluding depreciation as for the 2023-4 figures) is given as £364.7bn in budget 2010. I think GDP for 2009 (not inflation-adjusted) was a total of £1,417.4bn. So total DEL was 25.7% of GDP.
Assuming I haven't made a mistake in my figures (and I did find it hard to find consistent comparable figures, so I might have done!) it looks like there has been a large reduction in spending on "public services" as a % of GDP.
The difference being made up by a large increase in debt interest payments and on cash transfers - mainly the state pension.
We have increasingly mortgaged our children
You can do that??
Damn.
What do you consider public borrowing to be other than putting our kids in debt for current spending. They might have an argument for infrastructure borrowing that benefits those kids...borrowing to pay expenses not so much
Prediction: Starmer will be a one-term Prime Minister.
This is not going to be a one term majority. The electorate has become more volatile, but they are not going back to the Tories anytime soon..
You might be right though and Crazy Ed Davey will beat Starmer in 2028 with a Rejoin manifesto.
He's dropped 7 points in 7 days.
His coalition is fraying before he's even in office.
Think about it.
I'd be interested to see your workings there.
Going from the wikipedia table: Techne -1 (44 to 43) YouGov -4 (41 to 37) R+W flat (42 to 42) WeThink -2 (45 to 43) Whitestone -1 (42 to 41) BMG -1 (42 to 41)...
Labour are consistently down, sure. But not by seven. And as long as voters to the right of the Liberal Democrats remain split, it barely matters.
What can you expect from Tories apart from making things up?
Tories. The Tories! The Tories. The Tories.The Tories! The TORIES! THE Tories. THE TORIES. *The Tories* The. Tories. TORIES. Tories. Tories. THE TORIES. *THE TORRRIIEESS!!*
It's all you have.
We don't need much.
I wonder on here occasionally how we got here with left liberal bastions across society, what you would deem woke. How and when did the BBC go from high Tory patricians to metropolitan liberal, to being defended by the left and attacked by the right, how and when health & safety went from mustached NCO types insisting on surnames to wet lefties fussing about conkers. And HR, and all those other things.
Did the left storm the gates, wave their critical race theory, insist it was their world. I don't think so. I think the right's withdrawal from public administration, now reaching its denouement, is instructive.
Step by step the patricians, then the Thatcherites, then the cosplay post-Thatcherites simply withdrew from areas of the public sphere they felt beneath them, were not the thing for a right leaning person to do. If state spending was bad, what was the point of actually running, directing, administering things when in office. Why govern at all? It is beneath you.
And the point of Starmer is simply this and the Labour manifesto says nothing it it doesn't say this - we will take administration seriously and that is differentiation enough.
I don't know if the Conservative party has a way back from recusing itself from government in such a flamboyant way, with not even the modest depth of Starmer to call upon. What does this revived Tory party look like and where does it come from.
Super post. I would add. If you despise, defund and denigrate public services, as lazy, unproductive and overpaid, then the millions who work for them won't even consider voting for you. Let alone vote for you. Cameron won teachers. Teachers!!! In 2010.
Defund public services?
The state of this.
Come work in them. Then we'll talk. State of you. How else would you describe a zero increase in SEN per pupil funding since 2010? That's actual. Not real terms.
How would you describe the highest level of taxation as a % of GDP since the 1960s? You can say that the money given to public services is being poorly deployed - I'd be the first to agree with you. But underfunded THEY AIN'T.
We have huge amounts being spent on debt interest. We have huge amounts being spent on the state pension, because of the demographic transition and the triple lock.
So, yes, you can have high taxation and low spending on public services, at the same time. Well, that's the argument. Can I stand it up with some numbers?
In budget 2024, resource Departmental Expenditure Limits for 2023-4 total £428.9bn. Capital DEL is £98.3bn. That's a total of £527.2bn being spent on "public services" - the rest of government spending being cash transfers (pensions, social security), or debt interest. GDP is £2,687bn for 2023. So total DEL is 19.6% of GDP.
Total DEL for 2009-10 (excluding depreciation as for the 2023-4 figures) is given as £364.7bn in budget 2010. I think GDP for 2009 (not inflation-adjusted) was a total of £1,417.4bn. So total DEL was 25.7% of GDP.
Assuming I haven't made a mistake in my figures (and I did find it hard to find consistent comparable figures, so I might have done!) it looks like there has been a large reduction in spending on "public services" as a % of GDP.
The difference being made up by a large increase in debt interest payments and on cash transfers - mainly the state pension.
Prediction: Starmer will be a one-term Prime Minister.
This is not going to be a one term majority. The electorate has become more volatile, but they are not going back to the Tories anytime soon..
You might be right though and Crazy Ed Davey will beat Starmer in 2028 with a Rejoin manifesto.
He's dropped 7 points in 7 days.
His coalition is fraying before he's even in office.
Think about it.
I'd be interested to see your workings there.
Going from the wikipedia table: Techne -1 (44 to 43) YouGov -4 (41 to 37) R+W flat (42 to 42) WeThink -2 (45 to 43) Whitestone -1 (42 to 41) BMG -1 (42 to 41)...
Labour are consistently down, sure. But not by seven. And as long as voters to the right of the Liberal Democrats remain split, it barely matters.
What can you expect from Tories apart from making things up?
Tories. The Tories! The Tories. The Tories.The Tories! The TORIES! THE Tories. THE TORIES. *The Tories* The. Tories. TORIES. Tories. Tories. THE TORIES. *THE TORRRIIEESS!!*
It's all you have.
We don't need much.
I wonder on here occasionally how we got here with left liberal bastions across society, what you would deem woke. How and when did the BBC go from high Tory patricians to metropolitan liberal, to being defended by the left and attacked by the right, how and when health & safety went from mustached NCO types insisting on surnames to wet lefties fussing about conkers. And HR, and all those other things.
Did the left storm the gates, wave their critical race theory, insist it was their world. I don't think so. I think the right's withdrawal from public administration, now reaching its denouement, is instructive.
Step by step the patricians, then the Thatcherites, then the cosplay post-Thatcherites simply withdrew from areas of the public sphere they felt beneath them, were not the thing for a right leaning person to do. If state spending was bad, what was the point of actually running, directing, administering things when in office. Why govern at all? It is beneath you.
And the point of Starmer is simply this and the Labour manifesto says nothing it it doesn't say this - we will take administration seriously and that is differentiation enough.
I don't know if the Conservative party has a way back from recusing itself from government in such a flamboyant way, with not even the modest depth of Starmer to call upon. What does this revived Tory party look like and where does it come from.
Super post. I would add. If you despise, defund and denigrate public services, as lazy, unproductive and overpaid, then the millions who work for them won't even consider voting for you. Let alone vote for you. Cameron won teachers. Teachers!!! In 2010.
Defund public services?
The state of this.
Come work in them. Then we'll talk. State of you. How else would you describe a zero increase in SEN per pupil funding since 2010? That's actual. Not real terms.
How would you describe the highest level of taxation as a % of GDP since the 1960s? You can say that the money given to public services is being poorly deployed - I'd be the first to agree with you. But underfunded THEY AIN'T.
We have huge amounts being spent on debt interest. We have huge amounts being spent on the state pension, because of the demographic transition and the triple lock.
So, yes, you can have high taxation and low spending on public services, at the same time. Well, that's the argument. Can I stand it up with some numbers?
In budget 2024, resource Departmental Expenditure Limits for 2023-4 total £428.9bn. Capital DEL is £98.3bn. That's a total of £527.2bn being spent on "public services" - the rest of government spending being cash transfers (pensions, social security), or debt interest. GDP is £2,687bn for 2023. So total DEL is 19.6% of GDP.
Total DEL for 2009-10 (excluding depreciation as for the 2023-4 figures) is given as £364.7bn in budget 2010. I think GDP for 2009 (not inflation-adjusted) was a total of £1,417.4bn. So total DEL was 25.7% of GDP.
Assuming I haven't made a mistake in my figures (and I did find it hard to find consistent comparable figures, so I might have done!) it looks like there has been a large reduction in spending on "public services" as a % of GDP.
The difference being made up by a large increase in debt interest payments and on cash transfers - mainly the state pension.
You’re missing AME,
This might be where I discover the mistake I have made...
I had hoped that the AME total was going to be the spending that couldn't have a budget set for it at the start of the year, because you didn't know how many people were going to rock up and claim unemployment benefit. So I thought it was all the spending on cash transfers, like the pension, and housing benefit.
if that isn't the difference, do you have a succinct explanation of what the difference between DEL and AME is?
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 59m There's no point debating with Farage. He is what he is, he'll get the vote he gets. He's a vibe - a brainstem feeling of resentment about smoking in pubs and classic cars and silver service. You might as well debate a Hamlet ad from the 80s.
Brexit and Trump happened because of this type of condescension.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 59m There's no point debating with Farage. He is what he is, he'll get the vote he gets. He's a vibe - a brainstem feeling of resentment about smoking in pubs and classic cars and silver service. You might as well debate a Hamlet ad from the 80s.
Brexit and Trump happened because of this type of condescension.
That's always been a ridiculously lame retort. For one those are quite different things, and the idea some vague sense of condescension lay behind it is extremely lazy.
AME is more unpredictable spend. HMT avoids it wherever possible for this reason. However many benefits are AME, as it’s unfair to expect (for example) DWP to actively manage how many pensioners are alive…
Let's face it, Starmer is rubbish. A grotesque failure. He inherited a party following a catastrophic defeat in 2019, and has done absolutely nothing to turn it around. He is no Tony Blair. Indeed, until recently he was Jeremy Corbyn's biggest fan. However, by sheer fortune, he is likely to end up being PM shortly, but only because of the incompetence of the Tories and a divided opposition.
And, to compound his uselessness, he is now doing everything he can, even before he's PM, to make sure Labour suffer another catastrophic defeat in 2029. Even though it hasn't happened yet, we all know he's a rubbish PM. He won't even prosecute Jimmy Savile, I'll bet.
Have I got all that right?
I think it is a bit comical that people are already focusing on supposedly inevitable backlash or failure that he will oversee. Sure, that's possible, most government's are a bit crappy so its best to be prepared for that outcome, but 'might do badly' is not much of a revelation, and the public do try to indulge in a bit of optimism about what leaders can do from time to time.
On the broader point, we don't like to give any credit to people, even when it is due. Boris was up against Corbyn, but he still had positives and took actions which magnified the victory that occurred, it wasn't all down to the opposition. If Starmer wins, he will have been greatly aided by what he has faced, but it won't be entirely down to that either.
It is not a reflection on labour particularly or Starmer, I don't see how the next government whoever it is fails to preside over falling living standards. Public services will get worse, tax will go up
Oh, there's some severe issues to address which, politically and practically, will be very difficult to address. A misstep and a backlash is a possibility. But there is a difference between raising that possibility and the reasons for it, and if someone were to present it as some certainty which others would be fools not to agree with. I just think some copium online is seizing on the idea as a bitter way of dealing with potential defeat.
I don't think any current party has an answer, I also don't think the electorate in 5 years time will be in a mood to listen to those who fail. I predict either a radical left or right government after
We flatter to deceive on the radical politics in this country it seems.
Managed declinism of a different variety will be the way I expect.
Which is why thatcher, love her or hate her got elected....the electorate saw managed decline continuing if they elected more of the same....thats what we have now....they will give starmers labour a turn then if he fails which I expect.....
AME is more unpredictable spend. HMT avoids it wherever possible for this reason. However many benefits are AME, as it’s unfair to expect (for example) DWP to actively manage how many pensioners are alive…
Yes. I wanted to exclude benefit spending as it's not "public services" as such, in terms of schools, hospitals, the court system, etc.
AME is more unpredictable spend. HMT avoids it wherever possible for this reason. However many benefits are AME, as it’s unfair to expect (for example) DWP to actively manage how many pensioners are alive…
Yes. I wanted to exclude benefit spending as it's not "public services" as such, in terms of schools, hospitals, the court system, etc.
AME (Annually Managed Expenditure) – largely difficult to forecast public expenditure such as demand-led benefits and tax credits; non-cash costs; and bank holdings and loan repayments. Spending in AME is separate to DEL. DEL (Departmental Expenditure Limit) – expenditure that departments can largely control. Annual DEL budgets (spending limits) for several years are set in Spending Reviews, and may only be modified with Treasury agreement. There are separate DELs for Resource and Capital spending.
I think for my argument that DEL is what I want to look at. Obviously if AME has gone up a lot then overall government spending would still have risen, but my argument was kinda that - spending on DEL has fallen, and that is the bit that people think of when they talk about "public services", and the difference is made up of an increase in AME (which includes debt interest).
So, in summary: Taxation is up. Spending on public services is down. Debt interest is up. State pension spending is up (due to more pensioners, and due to more pension per pensioner).
And that is why the Tories might come third, and still win the vote among over-65s.
This is the bi-annual occasion in which one can taunt all the GDS fanboys who claim that we have the best government website in the world with "ok, find the newly published honours list then".
Not a great result for John Swinney and the SNP mid campaign to see Scotland lose their first Euros match 5-1
Was there any human being in this country who genuinely thought the SNP's fortunes would be appreciably affected by the football?
Scottish football fans are overwhelmingly Nationalists and SNP voters, Scottish rugby union fans on the other hand are normally Unionists
this is just nonsense
It isn't, Celtic fans backed Yes by an 8% margin according to a 2014 poll, even Rangers fans backed Yes by 4% (albeit St Johnstone fans were for No). Scotland overall voted 10% No.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 59m There's no point debating with Farage. He is what he is, he'll get the vote he gets. He's a vibe - a brainstem feeling of resentment about smoking in pubs and classic cars and silver service. You might as well debate a Hamlet ad from the 80s.
Brexit and Trump happened because of this type of condescension.
That's always been a ridiculously lame retort. For one those are quite different things, and the idea some vague sense of condescension lay behind it is extremely lazy.
Spoken as someone who voted for Brexit.
As someone else who voted for and still supports Brexit I would agree with you to some extent. I don't think such condescension was the cause of Brexit but I don't think it helped. Cameron set the stage for this with his constant dismissal of the Eurosceptics rather than actually engaging with the arguments. It meant that when he came back with his 'deal' there was almost no one who actually believd him. The attitude of Europhiles did not cause Brexit but it certainly made the waverers less receptive to arguments for staying in the EU.
AME is more unpredictable spend. HMT avoids it wherever possible for this reason. However many benefits are AME, as it’s unfair to expect (for example) DWP to actively manage how many pensioners are alive…
Yes. I wanted to exclude benefit spending as it's not "public services" as such, in terms of schools, hospitals, the court system, etc.
Page 95 (as printed on the page) is what you are after. You’re not wrong. I could quibble, but you’re not wrong.
Not a great result for John Swinney and the SNP mid campaign to see Scotland lose their first Euros match 5-1
Was there any human being in this country who genuinely thought the SNP's fortunes would be appreciably affected by the football?
Scottish football fans are overwhelmingly Nationalists and SNP voters, Scottish rugby union fans on the other hand are normally Unionists
this is just nonsense
It isn't, Celtic fans backed Yes by an 8% margin according to a 2014 poll, even Rangers fans backed Yes by 4% (albeit St Johnstone fans were for No). Scotland overall voted 10% No.
Left foot studs up while he went for the ball with the right foot. Stupid challenge for 2024. The referee wouldn't even have stopped the game in Argentina '78.
Double Jeopardy though with a red card and penalty. A yellow would be fair.
I agree, but letter of the law is studs on ankle red card. Shin pads and no cards back in our day!
Two footed sliding tackle in the box was always a red at this level. Well, since I’ve been watching from the late 80s.
I suggest you watch Don Revie's Leeds squad from 1971 or Johnny Giles' promotion winning West Brom side from 1976.
Heh. Yeah before my time sadly. But have seen the Brian Clough views on that Leeds side. “You won them all by cheating”.
They really did.
Big Jack, Bremner, Norman Hunter, Johnny Giles were all absolutely dirty barsteward, but then Leeds weren't alone, Bryan Kidd, Alan Ball, Francis Lee, Nobby Styles were very dirty too.
"A Welsh Conservative politician has been stripped of her spokesperson job after texts from her phone appeared to show an employee was asked to maximise expenses claims.
Senedd Tory leader Andrew RT Davies said he has asked Laura Anne Jones, who is under investigation by police, to step back from his shadow cabinet.
The messages, reported by BBC Wales on Friday, appeared to show a member of staff being asked: "When doing petrol thing - always make more than I did – add in stuff please ok"."
- I think it’s rather sad that the only way you can deal with the present is to imagine / hope for a future that is so uncertain
- History doesn’t support your view that a (let’s say) 150 seat majority can be overturned in one term. So, realistically, if (IF) Labour take a 150+ seat maj then will be in power for 9-10 years minimum
- They, and the country, start from such a low base (as does your party) that I think you are detaching yourself from the reality of what is taking place as a psychological device. It’s a flight reaction.
Do you not see how quoting historical precedents is useful, but not a slam dunk given the distant lack of precedented times since 2015?
Things are more in flux.
Consider that on these boundaries you are currently watching an adjusted Tory majority of over 100 completely reversed.
I wonder, will a Labour government decide to ‘revise’ many or all of the recent changes to the electoral system.
It would be good to see them dumping the stupid ID requirements for in person voting but also tighten the rules on postal voting. These are easy things to do which require little time or money but which would be worth doing because they are 'right' for democracy.
Voter's who have stepped this side of the White Cliffs of Dover for the last half century can f*** off too!
Sorry, "voters who HAVEN'T stepped this side of the White Cliffs of Dover ..."
Come on Scotland. For Malc, Farooq, TheUnionDivie, Carnyx, Burgessian, Rochdale (lol) and any Scots posters I’ve missed. And most of all for Gordon Brown, may a little happiness finally enter your life. Just remembered DavidL, sorry, I keep thinking you are English.
I'm sorry I missed this because I could have told you what was going to happen. In fact, I did, numerous times over the past few weeks. Oh well. No surprises. Nice for Scotland to be back and to have scored a goal. Two more matches, we'll enjoy it regardless.
Comments
All that money is going to an aging population.
Witness the closed libraries, youth clubs, mental health support, park upkeep, public toilets, potholes, SureStarts, etc., etc. ad nauseum.
Which is why there's a general perception that nowt works.
Which all circles back to the original point that the Tories at some point decided that they shouldn't work.
Which is OK. But it doesn't take the country with you.
And simply denying it is happening leads inevitably to polling in the teens.
Because folk aren't stupid.
Starmer will not be very old come 2028/2029. He should have a large enough buffer to win a second term (but then again so did Boris, albeit with greater years of baggage) unless he completely collapses and the Tories have a spectacular recovery, but even if he manages it, very few leaders would last out even to 8-9 years.
I wouldn't be surprised if Starmer called it quits after one term, our political leaders seem to go in for short careers in recent decades, but I think he'll manage a re-election and last at least a little beyond - a big win, an opposition which will probably be figuring things out, and 'blame the last government' working relatively well in a first term should see him through.
1929 and 1950 were complete reversals of landslides and in the case of 1929 an enormous 209 majority!
So governments can collapse after one term and landslides can be reversed. And I would say we live in more volatile political times now than we ever have, so whatever the size of Labours majority on 4th July, nothing is guaranteed for 2028/2029.
and yes that is malcolmg as leadsinger
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8431/CBP-8431.pdf
And, to compound his uselessness, he is now doing everything he can, even before he's PM, to make sure Labour suffer another catastrophic defeat in 2029. Even though it hasn't happened yet, we all know he's a rubbish PM. He won't even prosecute Jimmy Savile, I'll bet.
Have I got all that right?
@IrvineWelsh
·
42m
Argentina lost the opener to Saudi Arabia in the World Cup. We all know how that ended up. Best to keep your powder a little dry and fly under the radar for a bit.
Many worthy people get recognised with honours. But it certainly helps to do some good and know the right people.
Or give money to the right people if you want to skip the first step.
On the broader point, we don't like to give any credit to people, even when it is due. Boris was up against Corbyn, but he still had positives and took actions which magnified the victory that occurred, it wasn't all down to the opposition. If Starmer wins, he will have been greatly aided by what he has faced, but it won't be entirely down to that either.
Starmer is also responsible for ruining the lives of millions of privately-educated children and their families. If he can do this much harm even before he's PM, just imagine the havoc he'll wreak once in power.
If you're Argentina.
Yes, there is Ukraine and especially Covid. But as @dixiedean notes as an excellent example, they have simply made the state of SEN in schools flatly worse, through both funding *and* sclerotic, policy blundering. Meanwhile the actual professionals continue trying to do their best with what they have, in spite of everything. See also health, justice (especially justice!) and much more, not to mention the interdependencies of these public services and the knock-on effects they have on each other.
Enough. 14 years and the country is not in a better place, not by a long chalk, nor by the measures of those on the left *or* the right.
I have no idea whether Starmer will make it past the subsequent election but I don't think age is of itself a barrier.
Just kidding, I'm a jalfrezi man.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-13526899/JAN-MOIR-Wes-Streeting-threat-throw-train-pompous-self-serving-non-apology.html
This is going to be a tough one for the exit poll, especially if Reform are anywhere near where they are now.
Was it ever revealed which curry Sir Keir ate though? I don’t remember that detail.
@gsoh31
·
59m
There's no point debating with Farage. He is what he is, he'll get the vote he gets. He's a vibe - a brainstem feeling of resentment about smoking in pubs and classic cars and silver service. You might as well debate a Hamlet ad from the 80s.
Managed declinism of a different variety will be the way I expect.
I cannot believe that Reform will match their current polling. I just can’t. It’s UKIP all over agin.
And yet.
So the bongs, followed by the exit poll are going to be one of the highlights of my year, sad though that sounds.
Labour will hope however he proves to be more Wilson or Attlee than Brown or Callaghan and can sustain a reasonable sustained period of Labour government while shifting the country economically and/or culturally further to the left
So, yes, you can have high taxation and low spending on public services, at the same time. Well, that's the argument. Can I stand it up with some numbers?
In budget 2024, resource Departmental Expenditure Limits for 2023-4 total £428.9bn. Capital DEL is £98.3bn. That's a total of £527.2bn being spent on "public services" - the rest of government spending being cash transfers (pensions, social security), or debt interest. GDP is £2,687bn for 2023. So total DEL is 19.6% of GDP.
Total DEL for 2009-10 (excluding depreciation as for the 2023-4 figures) is given as £364.7bn in budget 2010. I think GDP for 2009 (not inflation-adjusted) was a total of £1,417.4bn. So total DEL was 25.7% of GDP.
Assuming I haven't made a mistake in my figures (and I did find it hard to find consistent comparable figures, so I might have done!) it looks like there has been a large reduction in spending on "public services" as a % of GDP.
The difference being made up by a large increase in debt interest payments and on cash transfers - mainly the state pension.
But I do think their rise will be real even to prevent even the modest boost the Tories were hoping for to stave off an embarrassing defeat, which may well have occurred with a better campaign and less Reform involvement.
Damn.
Paneer Tank!
I had hoped that the AME total was going to be the spending that couldn't have a budget set for it at the start of the year, because you didn't know how many people were going to rock up and claim unemployment benefit. So I thought it was all the spending on cash transfers, like the pension, and housing benefit.
if that isn't the difference, do you have a succinct explanation of what the difference between DEL and AME is?
Spoken as someone who voted for Brexit.
AME is more unpredictable spend. HMT avoids it wherever possible for this reason. However many benefits are AME, as it’s unfair to expect (for example) DWP to actively manage how many pensioners are alive…
AME (Annually Managed Expenditure) – largely difficult to forecast public expenditure such as demand-led benefits and tax credits; non-cash costs; and bank holdings and loan repayments. Spending in AME is separate to DEL.
DEL (Departmental Expenditure Limit) – expenditure that departments can largely control. Annual DEL budgets (spending limits) for several years are set in Spending Reviews, and may only be modified with Treasury agreement. There are separate DELs for Resource and Capital spending.
I think for my argument that DEL is what I want to look at. Obviously if AME has gone up a lot then overall government spending would still have risen, but my argument was kinda that - spending on DEL has fallen, and that is the bit that people think of when they talk about "public services", and the difference is made up of an increase in AME (which includes debt interest).
So, in summary:
Taxation is up.
Spending on public services is down.
Debt interest is up.
State pension spending is up (due to more pensioners, and due to more pension per pensioner).
And that is why the Tories might come third, and still win the vote among over-65s.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/old-firm-united-both-celtic-3598872
Scottish rugby union though is more Unionist and Tory, with Princess Anne a big supporter
https://www.economist.com/britain/2017/03/11/why-rugby-union-has-a-unionist-streak
https://obr.uk/docs/dlm_uploads/E03057758_OBR_EFO-March-2024_Web-AccessibleFinal.pdf
Senedd Tory leader Andrew RT Davies said he has asked Laura Anne Jones, who is under investigation by police, to step back from his shadow cabinet.
The messages, reported by BBC Wales on Friday, appeared to show a member of staff being asked: "When doing petrol thing - always make more than I did – add in stuff please ok"."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0ddjd8p41ko