If Lab doesn't succeed perhaps the voters will turn to somebody other than the Tories?

Comments

• Alanbrooke Posts: 25,940

  January 13

  Im hoping it's Sinn Fein
  
  Then we'll have nobody in Westminster and be netter off

  4
• numbertwelve Posts: 7,739

  January 13

  On topic - yes. I think this is a distinct possibility and good news for Reform, Greens and (if they’re savvy) the Lib Dems.

  0
• Carnyx Posts: 44,681

  January 13

  Alanbrooke said:

  Im hoping it's Sinn Fein
  
  Then we'll have nobody in Westminster and be netter off

  But then they can declare a republic as soon as they turn up.

  0
• Alanbrooke Posts: 25,940

  January 13

  Carnyx said:

  Alanbrooke said:

  Im hoping it's Sinn Fein
  
  Then we'll have nobody in Westminster and be netter off

  But then they can declare a republic as soon as they turn up.

  First they have to swear an oath of loyalty and then we can lock them up when they break it

  1
• williamglenn Posts: 56,314

  January 13

  People are becoming dissatisfied with the quality of politicians in Parliament, but Labour have a majority, so the solution is for Charles to fire Starmer and ask Tony Blair to form a government.

  -1
• Carnyx Posts: 44,681

  January 13

  williamglenn said:

  People are becoming dissatisfied with the quality of politicians in Parliament, but Labour have a majority, so the solution is for Charles to fire Starmer and ask Tony Blair to form a government.

  Not a peer.

  0
• Carnyx Posts: 44,681

  January 13

  Alanbrooke said:

  Carnyx said:

  Alanbrooke said:

  Im hoping it's Sinn Fein
  
  Then we'll have nobody in Westminster and be netter off

  But then they can declare a republic as soon as they turn up.

  First they have to swear an oath of loyalty and then we can lock them up when they break it

  But they'll have changed the law. Look at the stuff the Tories have done on what constitutes what is the truth, like passing the equivalent of pi is 3 exactly.

  0
• Nigelb Posts: 79,645

  January 13

  Trump has started a trend for this nonsense.
  
  Maduro proposes using Brazilian troops to “liberate” Puerto Rico from US rule.
  https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1878757349399441581

  2
• williamglenn Posts: 56,314

  January 13

  Carnyx said:

  williamglenn said:

  People are becoming dissatisfied with the quality of politicians in Parliament, but Labour have a majority, so the solution is for Charles to fire Starmer and ask Tony Blair to form a government.

  Not a peer.

  Indeed he is peerless in British politics.

  0
• Alanbrooke Posts: 25,940

  January 13 edited January 13

  Nigelb said:

  Trump has started a trend for this nonsense.
  
  Maduro proposes using Brazilian troops to “liberate” Puerto Rico from US rule.
  https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1878757349399441581

  Oddly he's not proposing his own troops

  1
• Omnium Posts: 11,798

  January 13

  Header: Perhaps the voters will. LDs at 90 or so is a very very small bet. I'd perhaps place a pound on the Greens if anyone offered me 2500-1.
  
  The clattering crap of Reform won't be it though.
  
  The current Tory party are only marginally better than Labour. I'd hope that they really up their game in the next couple of years, but I doubt they will.
  
  But hey, the job is clearly vacant, and the application process is one where you have almost no other candidates.
  
  

  0
• algarkirk Posts: 15,065

  January 13 edited January 13

  As to 'If Labour doesn't succeed' in the headline, I feel this: the WFA, IHT, employers NI, despite being unforced mistakes, could all be put down to early days errors and an excess of zeal.
  
  But that isn't true of three other things, which are looking fatal. First is terrible communication of the narrative and trajectory, which is just fundamental to modern politics. And they could have just asked Blair and Campbell on the quiet how it's done.
  
  Second is the sense of being taken by surprise by the mess we all knew was there and the apparent absence of a coherent plan.
  
  Third, and worst by far is kicking Dilnot/social care (2011) to 2028 and after. This says in very large capital letters "We are not serious, we never had a plan, and we think you are all fools for voting for us".
  
  Therefore at this moment as a usually Tory for 50 years, voting Labour in 2024, I won't even think about voting for either party until something changes bigly.

  7
• williamglenn Posts: 56,314

  January 13

  Maybe the IMF could force Starmer to be replaced with a technocratic Blair-led government to restore market confidence.

  0
• bondegezou Posts: 15,316

  January 13

  algarkirk said:

  As to 'If Labour doesn't succeed' in the headline, I feel this: the WFA, IHT, employers NI, despite being unforced mistakes, could all be put down to early days errors and an excess of zeal.
  
  But that isn't true of three other things, which are looking fatal. First is terrible communication of the narrative and trajectory, which is just fundamental to modern politics. And they could have just asked Blair and Campbell on the quiet how it's done.
  
  Second is the sense of being taken by surprise by the mess we all knew was there and the apparent absence of a coherent plan.
  
  Third, and worst by far is kicking Dilnot/social care (2011) to 2028 and after. This says in very large capital letters "We are not serious, we never had a plan, and we think you are all fools for voting for us".
  
  Therefore at this moment as a usually Tory for 50 years, voting Labour in 2024, I won't even think about voting for either party until something changes bigly.

  I'm not convinced that any of this is actually cutting through with voters in a serious way. Even if it is, I doubt anyone will remember it when the next general election comes.

  0
• JosiasJessop Posts: 46,348

  January 13

  I listened to some of Starmer's AI speech as I drove to the pool today. Leaving aside the content, his delivery is awful. It might work in a court or meeting, but it just doesn't work when he has to deliver a message to the public, or sell a policy.
  
  He should really have got this sorted years ago. Thatcher had voice coaching, as I recall.

  5
• numbertwelve Posts: 7,739

  January 13 edited January 13

  algarkirk said:

  As to 'If Labour doesn't succeed' in the headline, I feel this: the WFA, IHT, employers NI, despite being unforced mistakes, could all be put down to early days errors and an excess of zeal.
  
  But that isn't true of three other things, which are looking fatal. First is terrible communication of the narrative and trajectory, which is just fundamental to modern politics. And they could have just asked Blair and Campbell on the quiet how it's done.
  
  Second is the sense of being taken by surprise by the mess we all knew was there and the apparent absence of a coherent plan.
  
  Third, and worst by far is kicking Dilnot/social care (2011) to 2028 and after. This says in very large capital letters "We are not serious, we never had a plan, and we think you are all fools for voting for us".
  
  Therefore at this moment as a usually Tory for 50 years, voting Labour in 2024, I won't even think about voting for either party until something changes bigly.

  This is pretty much where I am too. My big ask of Labour was that theyd at least go some way to trying to tackle some of the structural problems. In some ways they sound like they mean it, but as with the care decision Im becoming increasingly concerned it’s lip service. The budget was just a big tax raising budget, it didn’t really examine any of the fundamentals.
  
  I think we all thought they had some kind of A Plan. And I admit I got worried in the GE campaign that everything was too cautious and policy-lite, but I eventually voted for them because I put that down to bad political tactics. But it is starting to very much look they did not have A Plan. Which to say they must have seriously had one eye on government at least since Partygate (which was the first rumblings that the end of Tory rule could be nigh) is pretty inexcusable.

  3
• TheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,993

  January 13

  williamglenn said:

  Maybe the IMF could force Starmer to be replaced with a technocratic Blair-led government to restore market confidence.

  Only one man could restore the confidence of the markets and that would be PM Osborne.

  1
• Malmesbury Posts: 55,942

  January 13

  OT
  
  It’s a democratic deficit.
  
  Politicians have, for decades, declared that deference is dead, society must change, that the will of the people is sovereign.
  
  The problem is that at the same time, on immigration and various other topics, The Order of Things is announced to be beyond the reach of politics. They are legal/human rights issue, untouchable and sacrosanct.
  
  In addition, the government has created a whole range of obligations and unfunded requirements that hedge in every action. See the vast tidal wave of paper required for even minor infrastructure.
  
  So you have the Unstoppable Cannonball of Popular Democracy and the Unbreakable Wall of That Which Must Be.

  2
• williamglenn Posts: 56,314

  January 13

  TheScreamingEagles said:

  williamglenn said:

  Maybe the IMF could force Starmer to be replaced with a technocratic Blair-led government to restore market confidence.

  Only one man could restore the confidence of the markets and that would be PM Osborne.

  Doesn't have what it takes. He's the Tory David Miliband.

  2
• numbertwelve Posts: 7,739

  January 13

  JosiasJessop said:

  I listened to some of Starmer's AI speech as I drove to the pool today. Leaving aside the content, his delivery is awful. It might work in a court or meeting, but it just doesn't work when he has to deliver a message to the public, or sell a policy.
  
  He should really have got this sorted years ago. Thatcher had voice coaching, as I recall.

  He can do sober and serious.
  
  He is absolutely appalling at selling a vision.
  
  He could be announcing the magic gun policy that would get the economy booming, fix the NHS and education, give us a world beating railway service, abolish income tax and ban pineapple on pizzas and it would still sound like the lamest policy imaginable.

  1
• IanB2 Posts: 52,505

  January 13

  Nearly 5pm and it's not yet dark, FFS

  2
• viewcode Posts: 25,331

  January 13

  In the period 2010 to 2015, Labour rubbed its hands in glee as UKIP tore strips out of the Conservatives. Then UKIP won the EP 2014 election...

  0
• eek Posts: 30,799

  January 13

  IanB2 said:

  Nearly 5pm and it's not yet dark, FFS

  It’s very dark up here

  1
• Malmesbury Posts: 55,942

  January 13

  numbertwelve said:

  algarkirk said:

  As to 'If Labour doesn't succeed' in the headline, I feel this: the WFA, IHT, employers NI, despite being unforced mistakes, could all be put down to early days errors and an excess of zeal.
  
  But that isn't true of three other things, which are looking fatal. First is terrible communication of the narrative and trajectory, which is just fundamental to modern politics. And they could have just asked Blair and Campbell on the quiet how it's done.
  
  Second is the sense of being taken by surprise by the mess we all knew was there and the apparent absence of a coherent plan.
  
  Third, and worst by far is kicking Dilnot/social care (2011) to 2028 and after. This says in very large capital letters "We are not serious, we never had a plan, and we think you are all fools for voting for us".
  
  Therefore at this moment as a usually Tory for 50 years, voting Labour in 2024, I won't even think about voting for either party until something changes bigly.

  This is pretty much where I am too. My big ask of Labour was that theyd at least go some way to trying to tackle some of the structural problems. In some ways they sound like they mean it, but as with the care decision Im becoming increasingly concerned it’s lip service. The budget was just a big tax raising budget, it didn’t really examine any of the fundamentals.
  
  I think we all thought they had some kind of A Plan. And I admit I got worried in the GE campaign that everything was too cautious and policy-lite, but I eventually voted for them because I put that down to bad political tactics. But it is starting to very much look they did not have A Plan. Which to say they must have seriously had one eye on government at least since Partygate (which was the first rumblings that the end of Tory rule could be nigh) is pretty inexcusable.

  Same here
  
  If I’d been Labour Chancellor, I’d have gone with merging employee NI and income tax, and reforming and simplifying the tax bands. With a bit of a bump in actual tax paid - “Need to raise tax to save the NHS. Hopefully, later, we can reduce rates when the crisis is passed.”
  
  The equalisation of taxation between salary and other income sources would be presented as fairness
  
  A simplified tax system would be harder to avoid and cheaper to administer.
  
  The markets would have been happier with that. As would, I suspect, many Labour members.
  
  On pensions I would have gone for throwing everything except the actual state pension in a pot, stirring and coming out with a simplified means tested (based on taxation?) extra benefits. WFA would have gone in the pot
  And not come out….
  
  Again, sell as a rework to target benefits at the needy - more for the poor. Markets would probably like that, as would Labour members.

  10
• Omnium Posts: 11,798

  January 13

  IanB2 said:

  Nearly 5pm and it's not yet dark, FFS

  I know your pal is a bit shabby, but you really can walk him in the daylight.

  0
• david_herdson Posts: 18,357

  January 13

  bondegezou said:

  algarkirk said:

  As to 'If Labour doesn't succeed' in the headline, I feel this: the WFA, IHT, employers NI, despite being unforced mistakes, could all be put down to early days errors and an excess of zeal.
  
  But that isn't true of three other things, which are looking fatal. First is terrible communication of the narrative and trajectory, which is just fundamental to modern politics. And they could have just asked Blair and Campbell on the quiet how it's done.
  
  Second is the sense of being taken by surprise by the mess we all knew was there and the apparent absence of a coherent plan.
  
  Third, and worst by far is kicking Dilnot/social care (2011) to 2028 and after. This says in very large capital letters "We are not serious, we never had a plan, and we think you are all fools for voting for us".
  
  Therefore at this moment as a usually Tory for 50 years, voting Labour in 2024, I won't even think about voting for either party until something changes bigly.

  I'm not convinced that any of this is actually cutting through with voters in a serious way. Even if it is, I doubt anyone will remember it when the next general election comes.

  It is cutting through. Maybe not in specifics (though a few are) but certainly as a vibe.
  
  Where's Labour's narrative and self-proclaimed mission? It wasn't effectively laid out before the election and hasn't been build since.

  1
• Mortimer Posts: 14,235

  January 13

  david_herdson said:

  bondegezou said:

  algarkirk said:

  As to 'If Labour doesn't succeed' in the headline, I feel this: the WFA, IHT, employers NI, despite being unforced mistakes, could all be put down to early days errors and an excess of zeal.
  
  But that isn't true of three other things, which are looking fatal. First is terrible communication of the narrative and trajectory, which is just fundamental to modern politics. And they could have just asked Blair and Campbell on the quiet how it's done.
  
  Second is the sense of being taken by surprise by the mess we all knew was there and the apparent absence of a coherent plan.
  
  Third, and worst by far is kicking Dilnot/social care (2011) to 2028 and after. This says in very large capital letters "We are not serious, we never had a plan, and we think you are all fools for voting for us".
  
  Therefore at this moment as a usually Tory for 50 years, voting Labour in 2024, I won't even think about voting for either party until something changes bigly.

  I'm not convinced that any of this is actually cutting through with voters in a serious way. Even if it is, I doubt anyone will remember it when the next general election comes.

  It is cutting through. Maybe not in specifics (though a few are) but certainly as a vibe.
  
  Where's Labour's narrative and self-proclaimed mission? It wasn't effectively laid out before the election and hasn't been build since.

  Not exactly 'a moral crusade' anymore is it; leads me to conclude that it is therefore, infact, 'nothing'.....

  2
• williamglenn Posts: 56,314

  January 13

  https://x.com/javierblas/status/1878830699354165329
  
  After meeting President Trump in Mar-a-Lago, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says Canada should prepare for 25% tariffs starting on Jan 20 on all US-bound products, ***including on crude oil***.
  
  "I'm not expecting any exemptions," she told reporters

  0
• JosiasJessop Posts: 46,348

  January 13

  numbertwelve said:

  JosiasJessop said:

  I listened to some of Starmer's AI speech as I drove to the pool today. Leaving aside the content, his delivery is awful. It might work in a court or meeting, but it just doesn't work when he has to deliver a message to the public, or sell a policy.
  
  He should really have got this sorted years ago. Thatcher had voice coaching, as I recall.

  He can do sober and serious.
  
  He is absolutely appalling at selling a vision.
  
  He could be announcing the magic gun policy that would get the economy booming, fix the NHS and education, give us a world beating railway service, abolish income tax and ban pineapple on pizzas and it would still sound like the lamest policy imaginable.

  If he isn't excited by what he's saying, why should anyone else be?
  
  It's sad that it matter, but it does. Blair could do it well; so could Cameron. May was better than Brown; even Sunak was better than Starmer in this regard - though all he had to sell was some rancid butter.

  1
• david_herdson Posts: 18,357

  January 13

  On topic, yes. Obviously, in fact, given that RefUK+Grn are currently 32%.
  
  I'm excluding the Lib Dems from that group as they're both of fairly recent vintage as a governing party and also mainstream establishment. However, it's telling that the highest Con+Lab share this year in any poll is just 53%. As TSE noted in a thread the other day, there's a decent chance the next election ends up with no party near a majority and 4-6 blocks of quite sizeable numbers.

  0
• Alanbrooke Posts: 25,940

  January 13

  LOL now Starmer saying Reeves will be CoE for full term
  
  wibble wibble
  
  flip flop
  
  Lammy too apparently
  
  

  1
• algarkirk Posts: 15,065

  January 13

  bondegezou said:

  algarkirk said:

  As to 'If Labour doesn't succeed' in the headline, I feel this: the WFA, IHT, employers NI, despite being unforced mistakes, could all be put down to early days errors and an excess of zeal.
  
  But that isn't true of three other things, which are looking fatal. First is terrible communication of the narrative and trajectory, which is just fundamental to modern politics. And they could have just asked Blair and Campbell on the quiet how it's done.
  
  Second is the sense of being taken by surprise by the mess we all knew was there and the apparent absence of a coherent plan.
  
  Third, and worst by far is kicking Dilnot/social care (2011) to 2028 and after. This says in very large capital letters "We are not serious, we never had a plan, and we think you are all fools for voting for us".
  
  Therefore at this moment as a usually Tory for 50 years, voting Labour in 2024, I won't even think about voting for either party until something changes bigly.

  I'm not convinced that any of this is actually cutting through with voters in a serious way. Even if it is, I doubt anyone will remember it when the next general election comes.

  This may be true of course - the future has not happened yet. But on current polling, even though it's a fairly meaningless exercise, the one takeaway is that Labour has dropped like a stone, from a low base and the Tories have not recovered at all from their abysmal base.
  
  So the sense that both traditional parties of government are as poison to the electorate - getting between them about half the votes when not long ago it was 85% - has to have a rationale somewhere. And I suggest that it is because a lot of people - perhaps almost everyone apart from their irremovable base - think neither are fit to govern.

  1
• eek Posts: 30,799

  January 13 edited January 13

  Malmesbury said:

  numbertwelve said:

  algarkirk said:

  As to 'If Labour doesn't succeed' in the headline, I feel this: the WFA, IHT, employers NI, despite being unforced mistakes, could all be put down to early days errors and an excess of zeal.
  
  But that isn't true of three other things, which are looking fatal. First is terrible communication of the narrative and trajectory, which is just fundamental to modern politics. And they could have just asked Blair and Campbell on the quiet how it's done.
  
  Second is the sense of being taken by surprise by the mess we all knew was there and the apparent absence of a coherent plan.
  
  Third, and worst by far is kicking Dilnot/social care (2011) to 2028 and after. This says in very large capital letters "We are not serious, we never had a plan, and we think you are all fools for voting for us".
  
  Therefore at this moment as a usually Tory for 50 years, voting Labour in 2024, I won't even think about voting for either party until something changes bigly.

  This is pretty much where I am too. My big ask of Labour was that theyd at least go some way to trying to tackle some of the structural problems. In some ways they sound like they mean it, but as with the care decision Im becoming increasingly concerned it’s lip service. The budget was just a big tax raising budget, it didn’t really examine any of the fundamentals.
  
  I think we all thought they had some kind of A Plan. And I admit I got worried in the GE campaign that everything was too cautious and policy-lite, but I eventually voted for them because I put that down to bad political tactics. But it is starting to very much look they did not have A Plan. Which to say they must have seriously had one eye on government at least since Partygate (which was the first rumblings that the end of Tory rule could be nigh) is pretty inexcusable.

  Same here
  
  If I’d been Labour Chancellor, I’d have gone with merging employee NI and income tax, and reforming and simplifying the tax bands. With a bit of a bump in actual tax paid - “Need to raise tax to save the NHS. Hopefully, later, we can reduce rates when the crisis is passed.”
  
  The equalisation of taxation between salary and other income sources would be presented as fairness
  
  A simplified tax system would be harder to avoid and cheaper to administer.
  
  The markets would have been happier with that. As would, I suspect, many Labour members.
  
  On pensions I would have gone for throwing everything except the actual state pension in a pot, stirring and coming out with a simplified means tested (based on taxation?) extra benefits. WFA would have gone in the pot
  And not come out….
  
  Again, sell as a rework to target benefits at the needy - more for the poor. Markets would probably like that, as would Labour members.

  My problem there is that reform is completely essential but the Tories spent all the leeway so we needed to increase taxes to where they were when NI was 12%
  
  So that screwed up the reform side of things because it wasn’t as simple as 5p off Ni and 3p on income tax attached to your plan I it would have been 3p on income tax and then your changes on top
  
  But the one thing I think we can agree on is that RR simply isn’t doing enough to fix any of the problems we have and kicking social care to 2028 shows they know there are big problems but they can’t see how to fix them

  0
• williamglenn Posts: 56,314

  January 13

  Alanbrooke said:

  LOL now Starmer saying Reeves will be CoE for full term
  
  wibble wibble
  
  flip flop
  
  Lammy too apparently
  
  

  He should try to emulate Prince Charles: "She has my full confidence, whatever confidence is."

  3
• Big_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,270

  January 13

  No 10 clarifies position that Reeves will be chancellor for the whole parliament
  
  Starmer is hopeless at politics

  0
• Nigel_Foremain Posts: 14,851

  January 13

  Alanbrooke said:

  LOL now Starmer saying Reeves will be CoE for full term
  
  wibble wibble
  
  flip flop
  
  Lammy too apparently
  
  

  He is not a leader.

  0
• SonofContrarian Posts: 204

  January 13

  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/01/13/british-industry-face-extinction-net-zero-sir-jim-ratcliffe/
  
  Who would invest in Britain on these terms? 🥴

  0
• Alanbrooke Posts: 25,940

  January 13

  williamglenn said:

  Alanbrooke said:

  LOL now Starmer saying Reeves will be CoE for full term
  
  wibble wibble
  
  flip flop
  
  Lammy too apparently
  
  

  He should try to emulate Prince Charles: "She has my full confidence, whatever confidence is."

  He's just painted himself in to another corner. If the country demands Reeves head on a platter, what does he do ?

  0
• Driver Posts: 5,560

  January 13

  Indeed. The immediate response to the general election result was that Labour had to not screw up before the Tories sorted themselves out, otherwise Farage was next in line.

  0
• eek Posts: 30,799

  January 13

  Nigel_Foremain said:

  Alanbrooke said:

  LOL now Starmer saying Reeves will be CoE for full term
  
  wibble wibble
  
  flip flop
  
  Lammy too apparently
  
  

  He is not a leader.

  This isn’t a leadership question it’s a media management issue - something that Blair and co were brilliant at and Labour seems to have forgotten even the really simple bits
  

  0
• Alanbrooke Posts: 25,940

  January 13

  Nigel_Foremain said:

  Alanbrooke said:

  LOL now Starmer saying Reeves will be CoE for full term
  
  wibble wibble
  
  flip flop
  
  Lammy too apparently
  
  

  He is not a leader.

  Tut tut remember he's an adult and will sort our problems out

  0
• DecrepiterJohnL Posts: 31,987

  January 13

  williamglenn said:

  TheScreamingEagles said:

  williamglenn said:

  Maybe the IMF could force Starmer to be replaced with a technocratic Blair-led government to restore market confidence.

  Only one man could restore the confidence of the markets and that would be PM Osborne.

  Doesn't have what it takes. He's the Tory David Miliband.

  Was David the brother with two kitchens, or was that Ed?

  0
• kle4 Posts: 99,221

  January 13

  Nigelb said:

  Trump has started a trend for this nonsense.
  
  Maduro proposes using Brazilian troops to “liberate” Puerto Rico from US rule.
  https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1878757349399441581

  I think the North Koreans cornered the market on ridiculous sabre rattling long before Trump began it, but he has not helped.

  0
• kle4 Posts: 99,221

  January 13

  DecrepiterJohnL said:

  williamglenn said:

  TheScreamingEagles said:

  williamglenn said:

  Maybe the IMF could force Starmer to be replaced with a technocratic Blair-led government to restore market confidence.

  Only one man could restore the confidence of the markets and that would be PM Osborne.

  Doesn't have what it takes. He's the Tory David Miliband.

  Was David the brother with two kitchens, or was that Ed?

  It was Ed.

  1
• numbertwelve Posts: 7,739

  January 13

  eek said:

  Malmesbury said:

  numbertwelve said:

  algarkirk said:

  As to 'If Labour doesn't succeed' in the headline, I feel this: the WFA, IHT, employers NI, despite being unforced mistakes, could all be put down to early days errors and an excess of zeal.
  
  But that isn't true of three other things, which are looking fatal. First is terrible communication of the narrative and trajectory, which is just fundamental to modern politics. And they could have just asked Blair and Campbell on the quiet how it's done.
  
  Second is the sense of being taken by surprise by the mess we all knew was there and the apparent absence of a coherent plan.
  
  Third, and worst by far is kicking Dilnot/social care (2011) to 2028 and after. This says in very large capital letters "We are not serious, we never had a plan, and we think you are all fools for voting for us".
  
  Therefore at this moment as a usually Tory for 50 years, voting Labour in 2024, I won't even think about voting for either party until something changes bigly.

  This is pretty much where I am too. My big ask of Labour was that theyd at least go some way to trying to tackle some of the structural problems. In some ways they sound like they mean it, but as with the care decision Im becoming increasingly concerned it’s lip service. The budget was just a big tax raising budget, it didn’t really examine any of the fundamentals.
  
  I think we all thought they had some kind of A Plan. And I admit I got worried in the GE campaign that everything was too cautious and policy-lite, but I eventually voted for them because I put that down to bad political tactics. But it is starting to very much look they did not have A Plan. Which to say they must have seriously had one eye on government at least since Partygate (which was the first rumblings that the end of Tory rule could be nigh) is pretty inexcusable.

  Same here
  
  If I’d been Labour Chancellor, I’d have gone with merging employee NI and income tax, and reforming and simplifying the tax bands. With a bit of a bump in actual tax paid - “Need to raise tax to save the NHS. Hopefully, later, we can reduce rates when the crisis is passed.”
  
  The equalisation of taxation between salary and other income sources would be presented as fairness
  
  A simplified tax system would be harder to avoid and cheaper to administer.
  
  The markets would have been happier with that. As would, I suspect, many Labour members.
  
  On pensions I would have gone for throwing everything except the actual state pension in a pot, stirring and coming out with a simplified means tested (based on taxation?) extra benefits. WFA would have gone in the pot
  And not come out….
  
  Again, sell as a rework to target benefits at the needy - more for the poor. Markets would probably like that, as would Labour members.

  My problem there is that reform is completely essential but the Tories spent all the leeway so we needed to increase taxes to where they were when NI was 12%
  
  So that screwed up the reform side of things because it wasn’t as simple as 5p off Ni and 3p on income tax attached to your plan I it would have been 3p on income tax and then your changes on top
  
  But the one thing I think we can agree on is that RR simply isn’t doing enough to fix any of the problems we have and kicking social care to 2028 shows they know there are big problems but they can’t see how to fix them

  The other thing of course that has been completely dodged is local government funding. Council tax is completely broken and outdated and the system disproportionately benefits some home types over others.
  
  At the very least I expected a revaluation to have been announced but no, not a peep.

  2
• Alanbrooke Posts: 25,940

  January 13

  eek said:

  Nigel_Foremain said:

  Alanbrooke said:

  LOL now Starmer saying Reeves will be CoE for full term
  
  wibble wibble
  
  flip flop
  
  Lammy too apparently
  
  

  He is not a leader.

  This isn’t a leadership question it’s a media management issue - something that Blair and co were brilliant at and Labour seems to have forgotten even the really simple bits
  

  No it's leadership.
  
  He has no vision of where he wants to take the country and as a result cannot communicate and take people with him.
  
  
  
  

  1
• kle4 Posts: 99,221

  January 13

  numbertwelve said:

  eek said:

  Malmesbury said:

  numbertwelve said:

  algarkirk said:

  As to 'If Labour doesn't succeed' in the headline, I feel this: the WFA, IHT, employers NI, despite being unforced mistakes, could all be put down to early days errors and an excess of zeal.
  
  But that isn't true of three other things, which are looking fatal. First is terrible communication of the narrative and trajectory, which is just fundamental to modern politics. And they could have just asked Blair and Campbell on the quiet how it's done.
  
  Second is the sense of being taken by surprise by the mess we all knew was there and the apparent absence of a coherent plan.
  
  Third, and worst by far is kicking Dilnot/social care (2011) to 2028 and after. This says in very large capital letters "We are not serious, we never had a plan, and we think you are all fools for voting for us".
  
  Therefore at this moment as a usually Tory for 50 years, voting Labour in 2024, I won't even think about voting for either party until something changes bigly.

  This is pretty much where I am too. My big ask of Labour was that theyd at least go some way to trying to tackle some of the structural problems. In some ways they sound like they mean it, but as with the care decision Im becoming increasingly concerned it’s lip service. The budget was just a big tax raising budget, it didn’t really examine any of the fundamentals.
  
  I think we all thought they had some kind of A Plan. And I admit I got worried in the GE campaign that everything was too cautious and policy-lite, but I eventually voted for them because I put that down to bad political tactics. But it is starting to very much look they did not have A Plan. Which to say they must have seriously had one eye on government at least since Partygate (which was the first rumblings that the end of Tory rule could be nigh) is pretty inexcusable.

  Same here
  
  If I’d been Labour Chancellor, I’d have gone with merging employee NI and income tax, and reforming and simplifying the tax bands. With a bit of a bump in actual tax paid - “Need to raise tax to save the NHS. Hopefully, later, we can reduce rates when the crisis is passed.”
  
  The equalisation of taxation between salary and other income sources would be presented as fairness
  
  A simplified tax system would be harder to avoid and cheaper to administer.
  
  The markets would have been happier with that. As would, I suspect, many Labour members.
  
  On pensions I would have gone for throwing everything except the actual state pension in a pot, stirring and coming out with a simplified means tested (based on taxation?) extra benefits. WFA would have gone in the pot
  And not come out….
  
  Again, sell as a rework to target benefits at the needy - more for the poor. Markets would probably like that, as would Labour members.

  My problem there is that reform is completely essential but the Tories spent all the leeway so we needed to increase taxes to where they were when NI was 12%
  
  So that screwed up the reform side of things because it wasn’t as simple as 5p off Ni and 3p on income tax attached to your plan I it would have been 3p on income tax and then your changes on top
  
  But the one thing I think we can agree on is that RR simply isn’t doing enough to fix any of the problems we have and kicking social care to 2028 shows they know there are big problems but they can’t see how to fix them

  The other thing of course that has been completely dodged is local government funding. Council tax is completely broken and outdated and the system disproportionately benefits some home types over others.
  
  At the very least I expected a revaluation to have been announced but no, not a peep.

  It certainly is an interesting experiment in how long a duff system can be kept going.

  0
• DecrepiterJohnL Posts: 31,987

  January 13

  JosiasJessop said:

  numbertwelve said:

  JosiasJessop said:

  I listened to some of Starmer's AI speech as I drove to the pool today. Leaving aside the content, his delivery is awful. It might work in a court or meeting, but it just doesn't work when he has to deliver a message to the public, or sell a policy.
  
  He should really have got this sorted years ago. Thatcher had voice coaching, as I recall.

  He can do sober and serious.
  
  He is absolutely appalling at selling a vision.
  
  He could be announcing the magic gun policy that would get the economy booming, fix the NHS and education, give us a world beating railway service, abolish income tax and ban pineapple on pizzas and it would still sound like the lamest policy imaginable.

  If he isn't excited by what he's saying, why should anyone else be?
  
  It's sad that it matter, but it does. Blair could do it well; so could Cameron. May was better than Brown; even Sunak was better than Starmer in this regard - though all he had to sell was some rancid butter.

  Hence the ex-Hollywood politicians like Reagan, Arnie and Trump, our own dear Boris, and Ukraine's Zelensky.

  0
• Nigel_Foremain Posts: 14,851

  January 13

  JosiasJessop said:

  I listened to some of Starmer's AI speech as I drove to the pool today. Leaving aside the content, his delivery is awful. It might work in a court or meeting, but it just doesn't work when he has to deliver a message to the public, or sell a policy.
  
  He should really have got this sorted years ago. Thatcher had voice coaching, as I recall.

  It makes one wonder how he coped in court to keep the attention of judge and jury. Maybe there have been numerous miscarriages of justice because he bored so many people they called a guilty verdict just so they could stop listening to his monotonous pompous droning.

  2
• bondegezou Posts: 15,316

  January 13

  Malmesbury said:

  OT
  
  It’s a democratic deficit.
  
  Politicians have, for decades, declared that deference is dead, society must change, that the will of the people is sovereign.
  
  The problem is that at the same time, on immigration and various other topics, The Order of Things is announced to be beyond the reach of politics. They are legal/human rights issue, untouchable and sacrosanct.
  
  In addition, the government has created a whole range of obligations and unfunded requirements that hedge in every action. See the vast tidal wave of paper required for even minor infrastructure.
  
  So you have the Unstoppable Cannonball of Popular Democracy and the Unbreakable Wall of That Which Must Be.

  The problem is not that The Order of Things on immigration has been "announced to be beyond the reach of politics", nor that, "They are legal/human rights issue, untouchable and sacrosanct." This is the old "We can't talk about immigration" canard. All we talk about, sometimes, is immigration.
  
  The problem is that Boris and the Conservatives more generally lied their assess off. They said they cared about reducing immigration and then didn't. They promised Brexit as the solution, and then massively increased immigration, because Brexit 'solving' immigration was just one of many lies about Brexit. It's not a democratic deficit, it's a Conservative Party deficit that they both wanted to talk about immigration as being high to drive up their vote, but they didn't actually want to stop their own policies that had driven immigration high. They have now paid the price by losing votes to Reform UK and suffering their worst ever election defeat.
  

  0
• algarkirk Posts: 15,065

  January 13

  david_herdson said:

  On topic, yes. Obviously, in fact, given that RefUK+Grn are currently 32%.
  
  I'm excluding the Lib Dems from that group as they're both of fairly recent vintage as a governing party and also mainstream establishment. However, it's telling that the highest Con+Lab share this year in any poll is just 53%. As TSE noted in a thread the other day, there's a decent chance the next election ends up with no party near a majority and 4-6 blocks of quite sizeable numbers.

  The fact that the LDs have barely shifted since the election, and any movement has actually been downwards is a very compelling fact about how they are seen by the electorate when they have started to despise both Lab and Con. The seeds of an epoch making change are around.
  
  The one thing Greens and Reform have in common is their populism.

  0
• DecrepiterJohnL Posts: 31,987

  January 13

  IanB2 said:

  Nearly 5pm and it's not yet dark, FFS

  At least it is not yet freezing.

  0
• Cleitophon Posts: 602

  January 13 edited January 13

  Negotiating with the the eu with red lines was a grave mistake. It angers the brexiteers and it angers the europhiles. Alienating the whole political spectrum is some accomplishment in this political climate. But they did the same thing with their budget. Annoyed workers, consumers and employers hahaha... you can't do politics like that.

  0
• Malmesbury Posts: 55,942

  January 13

  eek said:

  Malmesbury said:

  numbertwelve said:

  algarkirk said:

  As to 'If Labour doesn't succeed' in the headline, I feel this: the WFA, IHT, employers NI, despite being unforced mistakes, could all be put down to early days errors and an excess of zeal.
  
  But that isn't true of three other things, which are looking fatal. First is terrible communication of the narrative and trajectory, which is just fundamental to modern politics. And they could have just asked Blair and Campbell on the quiet how it's done.
  
  Second is the sense of being taken by surprise by the mess we all knew was there and the apparent absence of a coherent plan.
  
  Third, and worst by far is kicking Dilnot/social care (2011) to 2028 and after. This says in very large capital letters "We are not serious, we never had a plan, and we think you are all fools for voting for us".
  
  Therefore at this moment as a usually Tory for 50 years, voting Labour in 2024, I won't even think about voting for either party until something changes bigly.

  This is pretty much where I am too. My big ask of Labour was that theyd at least go some way to trying to tackle some of the structural problems. In some ways they sound like they mean it, but as with the care decision Im becoming increasingly concerned it’s lip service. The budget was just a big tax raising budget, it didn’t really examine any of the fundamentals.
  
  I think we all thought they had some kind of A Plan. And I admit I got worried in the GE campaign that everything was too cautious and policy-lite, but I eventually voted for them because I put that down to bad political tactics. But it is starting to very much look they did not have A Plan. Which to say they must have seriously had one eye on government at least since Partygate (which was the first rumblings that the end of Tory rule could be nigh) is pretty inexcusable.

  Same here
  
  If I’d been Labour Chancellor, I’d have gone with merging employee NI and income tax, and reforming and simplifying the tax bands. With a bit of a bump in actual tax paid - “Need to raise tax to save the NHS. Hopefully, later, we can reduce rates when the crisis is passed.”
  
  The equalisation of taxation between salary and other income sources would be presented as fairness
  
  A simplified tax system would be harder to avoid and cheaper to administer.
  
  The markets would have been happier with that. As would, I suspect, many Labour members.
  
  On pensions I would have gone for throwing everything except the actual state pension in a pot, stirring and coming out with a simplified means tested (based on taxation?) extra benefits. WFA would have gone in the pot
  And not come out….
  
  Again, sell as a rework to target benefits at the needy - more for the poor. Markets would probably like that, as would Labour members.

  My problem there is that reform is completely essential but the Tories spent all the leeway so we needed to increase taxes to where they were when NI was 12%
  
  So that screwed up the reform side of things because it wasn’t as simple as 5p off Ni and 3p on income tax attached to your plan I it would have been 3p on income tax and then your changes on top
  
  But the one thing I think we can agree on is that RR simply isn’t doing enough to fix any of the problems we have and kicking social care to 2028 shows they know there are big problems but they can’t see how to fix them

  Merging NI and Income Tax would increase tax take, just by itself - a lot of people not paying NI now.
  
  

  -1
• Omnium Posts: 11,798

  January 13

  Big_G_NorthWales said:

  No 10 clarifies position that Reeves will be chancellor for the whole parliament
  
  Starmer is hopeless at politics

  I think rather the opposite. Completely the right decision, and completely right to bang it out there.

  0
• Nigel_Foremain Posts: 14,851

  January 13

  eek said:

  Nigel_Foremain said:

  Alanbrooke said:

  LOL now Starmer saying Reeves will be CoE for full term
  
  wibble wibble
  
  flip flop
  
  Lammy too apparently
  
  

  He is not a leader.

  This isn’t a leadership question it’s a media management issue - something that Blair and co were brilliant at and Labour seems to have forgotten even the really simple bits
  

  It is absolutely a leadership issue. An important part of leadership is to decide on a course through consultation with your team and then inspire others with your collective vision, often through stimulating oratory. Starmer would make the most exciting innovation ever sound like he was reading the speaking clock. Actually that is unkind to the speaking clock.

  4
• bondegezou Posts: 15,316

  January 13

  Alanbrooke said:

  williamglenn said:

  Alanbrooke said:

  LOL now Starmer saying Reeves will be CoE for full term
  
  wibble wibble
  
  flip flop
  
  Lammy too apparently
  
  

  He should try to emulate Prince Charles: "She has my full confidence, whatever confidence is."

  He's just painted himself in to another corner. If the country demands Reeves head on a platter, what does he do ?

  He has not painted himself into a corner. If he wants to sack her at some point in the future, this statement will have zero significance: he'll just sack her.

  4
• eek Posts: 30,799

  January 13

  numbertwelve said:

  eek said:

  Malmesbury said:

  numbertwelve said:

  algarkirk said:

  As to 'If Labour doesn't succeed' in the headline, I feel this: the WFA, IHT, employers NI, despite being unforced mistakes, could all be put down to early days errors and an excess of zeal.
  
  But that isn't true of three other things, which are looking fatal. First is terrible communication of the narrative and trajectory, which is just fundamental to modern politics. And they could have just asked Blair and Campbell on the quiet how it's done.
  
  Second is the sense of being taken by surprise by the mess we all knew was there and the apparent absence of a coherent plan.
  
  Third, and worst by far is kicking Dilnot/social care (2011) to 2028 and after. This says in very large capital letters "We are not serious, we never had a plan, and we think you are all fools for voting for us".
  
  Therefore at this moment as a usually Tory for 50 years, voting Labour in 2024, I won't even think about voting for either party until something changes bigly.

  This is pretty much where I am too. My big ask of Labour was that theyd at least go some way to trying to tackle some of the structural problems. In some ways they sound like they mean it, but as with the care decision Im becoming increasingly concerned it’s lip service. The budget was just a big tax raising budget, it didn’t really examine any of the fundamentals.
  
  I think we all thought they had some kind of A Plan. And I admit I got worried in the GE campaign that everything was too cautious and policy-lite, but I eventually voted for them because I put that down to bad political tactics. But it is starting to very much look they did not have A Plan. Which to say they must have seriously had one eye on government at least since Partygate (which was the first rumblings that the end of Tory rule could be nigh) is pretty inexcusable.

  Same here
  
  If I’d been Labour Chancellor, I’d have gone with merging employee NI and income tax, and reforming and simplifying the tax bands. With a bit of a bump in actual tax paid - “Need to raise tax to save the NHS. Hopefully, later, we can reduce rates when the crisis is passed.”
  
  The equalisation of taxation between salary and other income sources would be presented as fairness
  
  A simplified tax system would be harder to avoid and cheaper to administer.
  
  The markets would have been happier with that. As would, I suspect, many Labour members.
  
  On pensions I would have gone for throwing everything except the actual state pension in a pot, stirring and coming out with a simplified means tested (based on taxation?) extra benefits. WFA would have gone in the pot
  And not come out….
  
  Again, sell as a rework to target benefits at the needy - more for the poor. Markets would probably like that, as would Labour members.

  My problem there is that reform is completely essential but the Tories spent all the leeway so we needed to increase taxes to where they were when NI was 12%
  
  So that screwed up the reform side of things because it wasn’t as simple as 5p off Ni and 3p on income tax attached to your plan I it would have been 3p on income tax and then your changes on top
  
  But the one thing I think we can agree on is that RR simply isn’t doing enough to fix any of the problems we have and kicking social care to 2028 shows they know there are big problems but they can’t see how to fix them

  The other thing of course that has been completely dodged is local government funding. Council tax is completely broken and outdated and the system disproportionately benefits some home types over others.
  
  At the very least I expected a revaluation to have been announced but no, not a peep.

  The problem is a revaluation by itself doesn’t work - given the difference in prices between the London, the South East and the north you would end up with a band A house being worth £500,000 in London and £100,000 up north. And you couldn’t hide the issue because the other fix is band D being £2000 a year in London and band A being £2000 a year in North
  
  Hence why no one wants to go near it and why I always end up going for the tax on house price logic because anything else will reveal how well off London is compared to elsewhere

  0
• Jim_Miller Posts: 3,431

  January 13

  Bill Clinton understood the importance of delivery. While he was president, he was taking lessons from a drama coach from one of the Ivy League schools. The coach came down to the White House once a month, as I recall.

  1
• eek Posts: 30,799

  January 13 edited January 13

  Malmesbury said:

  eek said:

  Malmesbury said:

  numbertwelve said:

  algarkirk said:

  As to 'If Labour doesn't succeed' in the headline, I feel this: the WFA, IHT, employers NI, despite being unforced mistakes, could all be put down to early days errors and an excess of zeal.
  
  But that isn't true of three other things, which are looking fatal. First is terrible communication of the narrative and trajectory, which is just fundamental to modern politics. And they could have just asked Blair and Campbell on the quiet how it's done.
  
  Second is the sense of being taken by surprise by the mess we all knew was there and the apparent absence of a coherent plan.
  
  Third, and worst by far is kicking Dilnot/social care (2011) to 2028 and after. This says in very large capital letters "We are not serious, we never had a plan, and we think you are all fools for voting for us".
  
  Therefore at this moment as a usually Tory for 50 years, voting Labour in 2024, I won't even think about voting for either party until something changes bigly.

  This is pretty much where I am too. My big ask of Labour was that theyd at least go some way to trying to tackle some of the structural problems. In some ways they sound like they mean it, but as with the care decision Im becoming increasingly concerned it’s lip service. The budget was just a big tax raising budget, it didn’t really examine any of the fundamentals.
  
  I think we all thought they had some kind of A Plan. And I admit I got worried in the GE campaign that everything was too cautious and policy-lite, but I eventually voted for them because I put that down to bad political tactics. But it is starting to very much look they did not have A Plan. Which to say they must have seriously had one eye on government at least since Partygate (which was the first rumblings that the end of Tory rule could be nigh) is pretty inexcusable.

  Same here
  
  If I’d been Labour Chancellor, I’d have gone with merging employee NI and income tax, and reforming and simplifying the tax bands. With a bit of a bump in actual tax paid - “Need to raise tax to save the NHS. Hopefully, later, we can reduce rates when the crisis is passed.”
  
  The equalisation of taxation between salary and other income sources would be presented as fairness
  
  A simplified tax system would be harder to avoid and cheaper to administer.
  
  The markets would have been happier with that. As would, I suspect, many Labour members.
  
  On pensions I would have gone for throwing everything except the actual state pension in a pot, stirring and coming out with a simplified means tested (based on taxation?) extra benefits. WFA would have gone in the pot
  And not come out….
  
  Again, sell as a rework to target benefits at the needy - more for the poor. Markets would probably like that, as would Labour members.

  My problem there is that reform is completely essential but the Tories spent all the leeway so we needed to increase taxes to where they were when NI was 12%
  
  So that screwed up the reform side of things because it wasn’t as simple as 5p off Ni and 3p on income tax attached to your plan I it would have been 3p on income tax and then your changes on top
  
  But the one thing I think we can agree on is that RR simply isn’t doing enough to fix any of the problems we have and kicking social care to 2028 shows they know there are big problems but they can’t see how to fix them

  Merging NI and Income Tax would increase tax take, just by itself - a lot of people not paying NI now.
  
  

  If you think pensioners are complaining now imagine if they were paying £1200 extra in income tax while their children were paying the same as before
  
  Truss removing the social care levy has a lot to blame for here - it would have been nice to have a separate tax that could be used tax pensioners with.

  1
• Alanbrooke Posts: 25,940

  January 13

  bondegezou said:

  Alanbrooke said:

  williamglenn said:

  Alanbrooke said:

  LOL now Starmer saying Reeves will be CoE for full term
  
  wibble wibble
  
  flip flop
  
  Lammy too apparently
  
  

  He should try to emulate Prince Charles: "She has my full confidence, whatever confidence is."

  He's just painted himself in to another corner. If the country demands Reeves head on a platter, what does he do ?

  He has not painted himself into a corner. If he wants to sack her at some point in the future, this statement will have zero significance: he'll just sack her.

  And take another hit on his and his government's credibility.
  
  So now the bond traders can test how he means it.

  0
• Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,189

  January 13

  JosiasJessop said:

  numbertwelve said:

  JosiasJessop said:

  I listened to some of Starmer's AI speech as I drove to the pool today. Leaving aside the content, his delivery is awful. It might work in a court or meeting, but it just doesn't work when he has to deliver a message to the public, or sell a policy.
  
  He should really have got this sorted years ago. Thatcher had voice coaching, as I recall.

  He can do sober and serious.
  
  He is absolutely appalling at selling a vision.
  
  He could be announcing the magic gun policy that would get the economy booming, fix the NHS and education, give us a world beating railway service, abolish income tax and ban pineapple on pizzas and it would still sound like the lamest policy imaginable.

  If he isn't excited by what he's saying, why should anyone else be?
  
  It's sad that it matter, but it does. Blair could do it well; so could Cameron. May was better than Brown; even Sunak was better than Starmer in this regard - though all he had to sell was some rancid butter.

  I'm sorry but Starmer's issues are not presentational. He is presiding over an authoritarian approach to free speech, a lamentable lack of action on genuine crime, a massive increase in boat arrivals, taxes that are putting people out of business, an energy policy that's destroying the economy and impoverishing consumers in favour of windmill owning sovereign wealth funds, and bunging £9bn at someone for them to take a colony from us. He could be a mixture of Joanna Lumley and Mary Berry and he still wouldn't be able to sell that turd sandwich.

  8
• bondegezou Posts: 15,316

  January 13

  Luckyguy1983 said:

  JosiasJessop said:

  numbertwelve said:

  JosiasJessop said:

  I listened to some of Starmer's AI speech as I drove to the pool today. Leaving aside the content, his delivery is awful. It might work in a court or meeting, but it just doesn't work when he has to deliver a message to the public, or sell a policy.
  
  He should really have got this sorted years ago. Thatcher had voice coaching, as I recall.

  He can do sober and serious.
  
  He is absolutely appalling at selling a vision.
  
  He could be announcing the magic gun policy that would get the economy booming, fix the NHS and education, give us a world beating railway service, abolish income tax and ban pineapple on pizzas and it would still sound like the lamest policy imaginable.

  If he isn't excited by what he's saying, why should anyone else be?
  
  It's sad that it matter, but it does. Blair could do it well; so could Cameron. May was better than Brown; even Sunak was better than Starmer in this regard - though all he had to sell was some rancid butter.

  I'm sorry but Starmer's issues are not presentational. He is presiding over an authoritarian approach to free speech, a lamentable lack of action on genuine crime, a massive increase in boat arrivals, taxes that are putting people out of business, an energy policy that's destroying the economy and impoverishing consumers in favour of windmill owning sovereign wealth funds, and bunging £9bn at someone for them to take a colony from us. He could be a mixture of Joanna Lumley and Mary Berry and he still wouldn't be able to sell that turd sandwich.

  "an authoritarian approach to free speech": if you mean the OSA, that was introduced by the Tories.
  
  "a lamentable lack of action on genuine crime": prison releases are a necessary result of the Tories' failures.
  
  "a massive increase in boat arrivals": hasn't been massive; Labour are deporting more than the Tories did.
  
  "bunging £9bn at someone for them to take a colony from us": another Tory policy

  1
• DecrepiterJohnL Posts: 31,987

  January 13

  Jim_Miller said:

  Bill Clinton understood the importance of delivery. While he was president, he was taking lessons from a drama coach from one of the Ivy League schools. The coach came down to the White House once a month, as I recall.

  Famously, Mrs Thatcher had voice coaching. Some of us on PB have recommended today's politicians seek similar from the drama schools that sell short courses to business people.

  1
• numbertwelve Posts: 7,739

  January 13 edited January 13

  bondegezou said:

  Alanbrooke said:

  williamglenn said:

  Alanbrooke said:

  LOL now Starmer saying Reeves will be CoE for full term
  
  wibble wibble
  
  flip flop
  
  Lammy too apparently
  
  

  He should try to emulate Prince Charles: "She has my full confidence, whatever confidence is."

  He's just painted himself in to another corner. If the country demands Reeves head on a platter, what does he do ?

  He has not painted himself into a corner. If he wants to sack her at some point in the future, this statement will have zero significance: he'll just sack her.

  It keeps the narrative going. We now have “Starmer couldn’t back Reeves at lunchtime and was forced into it later, while the markets wobble” type headlines. The BBC is leading on Reeves and the markets, not on AI.
  
  Will people pick it out as a pivotal moment a year from now? Probably not. Could it feed into the general feeling that the government is a bit rubbish, quite possibly. Starmer showed tremendous political naivety by not confirming she’d stay as chancellor as soon as he was asked.

  0
• Nigel_Foremain Posts: 14,851

  January 13

  Jim_Miller said:

  Bill Clinton understood the importance of delivery. While he was president, he was taking lessons from a drama coach from one of the Ivy League schools. The coach came down to the White House once a month, as I recall.

  However good you are (and Clinton was good) you can always be better. That is the problem with Starmer. I suspect his arrogance makes him believe that he is a brilliant presenter, and can't be improved upon. ("...when I was the Director of Public Prosecutions...drone", yawn. The man is a bore.

  0
• Alanbrooke Posts: 25,940

  January 13

  bondegezou said:

  Luckyguy1983 said:

  JosiasJessop said:

  numbertwelve said:

  JosiasJessop said:

  I listened to some of Starmer's AI speech as I drove to the pool today. Leaving aside the content, his delivery is awful. It might work in a court or meeting, but it just doesn't work when he has to deliver a message to the public, or sell a policy.
  
  He should really have got this sorted years ago. Thatcher had voice coaching, as I recall.

  He can do sober and serious.
  
  He is absolutely appalling at selling a vision.
  
  He could be announcing the magic gun policy that would get the economy booming, fix the NHS and education, give us a world beating railway service, abolish income tax and ban pineapple on pizzas and it would still sound like the lamest policy imaginable.

  If he isn't excited by what he's saying, why should anyone else be?
  
  It's sad that it matter, but it does. Blair could do it well; so could Cameron. May was better than Brown; even Sunak was better than Starmer in this regard - though all he had to sell was some rancid butter.

  I'm sorry but Starmer's issues are not presentational. He is presiding over an authoritarian approach to free speech, a lamentable lack of action on genuine crime, a massive increase in boat arrivals, taxes that are putting people out of business, an energy policy that's destroying the economy and impoverishing consumers in favour of windmill owning sovereign wealth funds, and bunging £9bn at someone for them to take a colony from us. He could be a mixture of Joanna Lumley and Mary Berry and he still wouldn't be able to sell that turd sandwich.

  "an authoritarian approach to free speech": if you mean the OSA, that was introduced by the Tories.
  
  "a lamentable lack of action on genuine crime": prison releases are a necessary result of the Tories' failures.
  
  "a massive increase in boat arrivals": hasn't been massive; Labour are deporting more than the Tories did.
  
  "bunging £9bn at someone for them to take a colony from us": another Tory policy

  Still stuck in opposition mode I see.
  
  

  2
• Omnium Posts: 11,798

  January 13

  Luckyguy1983 said:

  JosiasJessop said:

  numbertwelve said:

  JosiasJessop said:

  I listened to some of Starmer's AI speech as I drove to the pool today. Leaving aside the content, his delivery is awful. It might work in a court or meeting, but it just doesn't work when he has to deliver a message to the public, or sell a policy.
  
  He should really have got this sorted years ago. Thatcher had voice coaching, as I recall.

  He can do sober and serious.
  
  He is absolutely appalling at selling a vision.
  
  He could be announcing the magic gun policy that would get the economy booming, fix the NHS and education, give us a world beating railway service, abolish income tax and ban pineapple on pizzas and it would still sound like the lamest policy imaginable.

  If he isn't excited by what he's saying, why should anyone else be?
  
  It's sad that it matter, but it does. Blair could do it well; so could Cameron. May was better than Brown; even Sunak was better than Starmer in this regard - though all he had to sell was some rancid butter.

  I'm sorry but Starmer's issues are not presentational. He is presiding over an authoritarian approach to free speech, a lamentable lack of action on genuine crime, a massive increase in boat arrivals, taxes that are putting people out of business, an energy policy that's destroying the economy and impoverishing consumers in favour of windmill owning sovereign wealth funds, and bunging £9bn at someone for them to take a colony from us. He could be a mixture of Joanna Lumley and Mary Berry and he still wouldn't be able to sell that turd sandwich.

  Yes. So he's doing a great job as Labour leader and Labour PM. I can't see where you've lost faith.

  1
• bondegezou Posts: 15,316

  January 13

  numbertwelve said:

  bondegezou said:

  Alanbrooke said:

  williamglenn said:

  Alanbrooke said:

  LOL now Starmer saying Reeves will be CoE for full term
  
  wibble wibble
  
  flip flop
  
  Lammy too apparently
  
  

  He should try to emulate Prince Charles: "She has my full confidence, whatever confidence is."

  He's just painted himself in to another corner. If the country demands Reeves head on a platter, what does he do ?

  He has not painted himself into a corner. If he wants to sack her at some point in the future, this statement will have zero significance: he'll just sack her.

  It keeps the narrative going. We now have “Starmer couldn’t back Reeves at lunchtime and was forced into it later, while the markets wobble” type headlines. The BBC is leading on Reeves and the markets, not on AI.
  
  Will people pick it out as a pivotal moment a year from now? Probably not. Could it feed into the general feeling that the government is a bit rubbish, quite possibly. Starmer showed tremendous political naivety by not confirming it as soon as he was asked.

  Will people pick it out as a pivotal moment a year from now? Absolutely definitely not.
  
  The most important news today is probably what williamglenn posted at 5:08.

  0
• Big_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,270

  January 13

  Omnium said:

  Big_G_NorthWales said:

  No 10 clarifies position that Reeves will be chancellor for the whole parliament
  
  Starmer is hopeless at politics

  I think rather the opposite. Completely the right decision, and completely right to bang it out there.

  He shouldn't have got in the position no 10 had to clarify it

  0
• BartholomewRoberts Posts: 25,478

  January 13

  eek said:

  Malmesbury said:

  eek said:

  Malmesbury said:

  numbertwelve said:

  algarkirk said:

  As to 'If Labour doesn't succeed' in the headline, I feel this: the WFA, IHT, employers NI, despite being unforced mistakes, could all be put down to early days errors and an excess of zeal.
  
  But that isn't true of three other things, which are looking fatal. First is terrible communication of the narrative and trajectory, which is just fundamental to modern politics. And they could have just asked Blair and Campbell on the quiet how it's done.
  
  Second is the sense of being taken by surprise by the mess we all knew was there and the apparent absence of a coherent plan.
  
  Third, and worst by far is kicking Dilnot/social care (2011) to 2028 and after. This says in very large capital letters "We are not serious, we never had a plan, and we think you are all fools for voting for us".
  
  Therefore at this moment as a usually Tory for 50 years, voting Labour in 2024, I won't even think about voting for either party until something changes bigly.

  This is pretty much where I am too. My big ask of Labour was that theyd at least go some way to trying to tackle some of the structural problems. In some ways they sound like they mean it, but as with the care decision Im becoming increasingly concerned it’s lip service. The budget was just a big tax raising budget, it didn’t really examine any of the fundamentals.
  
  I think we all thought they had some kind of A Plan. And I admit I got worried in the GE campaign that everything was too cautious and policy-lite, but I eventually voted for them because I put that down to bad political tactics. But it is starting to very much look they did not have A Plan. Which to say they must have seriously had one eye on government at least since Partygate (which was the first rumblings that the end of Tory rule could be nigh) is pretty inexcusable.

  Same here
  
  If I’d been Labour Chancellor, I’d have gone with merging employee NI and income tax, and reforming and simplifying the tax bands. With a bit of a bump in actual tax paid - “Need to raise tax to save the NHS. Hopefully, later, we can reduce rates when the crisis is passed.”
  
  The equalisation of taxation between salary and other income sources would be presented as fairness
  
  A simplified tax system would be harder to avoid and cheaper to administer.
  
  The markets would have been happier with that. As would, I suspect, many Labour members.
  
  On pensions I would have gone for throwing everything except the actual state pension in a pot, stirring and coming out with a simplified means tested (based on taxation?) extra benefits. WFA would have gone in the pot
  And not come out….
  
  Again, sell as a rework to target benefits at the needy - more for the poor. Markets would probably like that, as would Labour members.

  My problem there is that reform is completely essential but the Tories spent all the leeway so we needed to increase taxes to where they were when NI was 12%
  
  So that screwed up the reform side of things because it wasn’t as simple as 5p off Ni and 3p on income tax attached to your plan I it would have been 3p on income tax and then your changes on top
  
  But the one thing I think we can agree on is that RR simply isn’t doing enough to fix any of the problems we have and kicking social care to 2028 shows they know there are big problems but they can’t see how to fix them

  Merging NI and Income Tax would increase tax take, just by itself - a lot of people not paying NI now.
  
  

  If you think pensioners are complaining now imagine if they were paying £1200 extra in income tax while their children were paying the same as before
  
  Truss removing the social care levy has a lot to blame for here - it would have been nice to have a separate tax that could be used tax pensioners with.

  Let them moan.
  
  It's the right thing to do.
  
  And it won't cost the Government many votes either since they didn't win many votes from that demographic anyway.
  
  So what have they got to lose?
  
  So Starmer won't do it. Because he's shit, no other reason.

  0
• Alanbrooke Posts: 25,940

  January 13

  Luckyguy1983 said:

  JosiasJessop said:

  numbertwelve said:

  JosiasJessop said:

  I listened to some of Starmer's AI speech as I drove to the pool today. Leaving aside the content, his delivery is awful. It might work in a court or meeting, but it just doesn't work when he has to deliver a message to the public, or sell a policy.
  
  He should really have got this sorted years ago. Thatcher had voice coaching, as I recall.

  He can do sober and serious.
  
  He is absolutely appalling at selling a vision.
  
  He could be announcing the magic gun policy that would get the economy booming, fix the NHS and education, give us a world beating railway service, abolish income tax and ban pineapple on pizzas and it would still sound like the lamest policy imaginable.

  If he isn't excited by what he's saying, why should anyone else be?
  
  It's sad that it matter, but it does. Blair could do it well; so could Cameron. May was better than Brown; even Sunak was better than Starmer in this regard - though all he had to sell was some rancid butter.

  I'm sorry but Starmer's issues are not presentational. He is presiding over an authoritarian approach to free speech, a lamentable lack of action on genuine crime, a massive increase in boat arrivals, taxes that are putting people out of business, an energy policy that's destroying the economy and impoverishing consumers in favour of windmill owning sovereign wealth funds, and bunging £9bn at someone for them to take a colony from us. He could be a mixture of Joanna Lumley and Mary Berry and he still wouldn't be able to sell that turd sandwich.

  But in twelve months time when Reeves is gone and we're desperate for cash we can always sell the BBC to Elon Musk

  0
• numbertwelve Posts: 7,739

  January 13

  Nigel_Foremain said:

  Jim_Miller said:

  Bill Clinton understood the importance of delivery. While he was president, he was taking lessons from a drama coach from one of the Ivy League schools. The coach came down to the White House once a month, as I recall.

  However good you are (and Clinton was good) you can always be better. That is the problem with Starmer. I suspect his arrogance makes him believe that he is a brilliant presenter, and can't be improved upon. ("...when I was the Director of Public Prosecutions...drone", yawn. The man is a bore.

  He needs to stop doing that “when I ran the Crown Prosecution Service…” anecdote stuff. It’s so dull. No-one cares. I think he thinks it sounds impressive. If they were entertaining anecdotes they might work, usually it’s just how he delegated some task or other. Dire.
  
  I have said this before, but he also has a very weak way of starting responses with a “of course it’s right that you ask that” or something of that nature. You’re immediately legitimising the other point of view, it brings you down to the level of the questioner. Not a strong way of dealing with questions.
  

  1
• bondegezou Posts: 15,316

  January 13

  BartholomewRoberts said:

  eek said:

  Malmesbury said:

  eek said:

  Malmesbury said:

  numbertwelve said:

  algarkirk said:

  As to 'If Labour doesn't succeed' in the headline, I feel this: the WFA, IHT, employers NI, despite being unforced mistakes, could all be put down to early days errors and an excess of zeal.
  
  But that isn't true of three other things, which are looking fatal. First is terrible communication of the narrative and trajectory, which is just fundamental to modern politics. And they could have just asked Blair and Campbell on the quiet how it's done.
  
  Second is the sense of being taken by surprise by the mess we all knew was there and the apparent absence of a coherent plan.
  
  Third, and worst by far is kicking Dilnot/social care (2011) to 2028 and after. This says in very large capital letters "We are not serious, we never had a plan, and we think you are all fools for voting for us".
  
  Therefore at this moment as a usually Tory for 50 years, voting Labour in 2024, I won't even think about voting for either party until something changes bigly.

  This is pretty much where I am too. My big ask of Labour was that theyd at least go some way to trying to tackle some of the structural problems. In some ways they sound like they mean it, but as with the care decision Im becoming increasingly concerned it’s lip service. The budget was just a big tax raising budget, it didn’t really examine any of the fundamentals.
  
  I think we all thought they had some kind of A Plan. And I admit I got worried in the GE campaign that everything was too cautious and policy-lite, but I eventually voted for them because I put that down to bad political tactics. But it is starting to very much look they did not have A Plan. Which to say they must have seriously had one eye on government at least since Partygate (which was the first rumblings that the end of Tory rule could be nigh) is pretty inexcusable.

  Same here
  
  If I’d been Labour Chancellor, I’d have gone with merging employee NI and income tax, and reforming and simplifying the tax bands. With a bit of a bump in actual tax paid - “Need to raise tax to save the NHS. Hopefully, later, we can reduce rates when the crisis is passed.”
  
  The equalisation of taxation between salary and other income sources would be presented as fairness
  
  A simplified tax system would be harder to avoid and cheaper to administer.
  
  The markets would have been happier with that. As would, I suspect, many Labour members.
  
  On pensions I would have gone for throwing everything except the actual state pension in a pot, stirring and coming out with a simplified means tested (based on taxation?) extra benefits. WFA would have gone in the pot
  And not come out….
  
  Again, sell as a rework to target benefits at the needy - more for the poor. Markets would probably like that, as would Labour members.

  My problem there is that reform is completely essential but the Tories spent all the leeway so we needed to increase taxes to where they were when NI was 12%
  
  So that screwed up the reform side of things because it wasn’t as simple as 5p off Ni and 3p on income tax attached to your plan I it would have been 3p on income tax and then your changes on top
  
  But the one thing I think we can agree on is that RR simply isn’t doing enough to fix any of the problems we have and kicking social care to 2028 shows they know there are big problems but they can’t see how to fix them

  Merging NI and Income Tax would increase tax take, just by itself - a lot of people not paying NI now.
  
  

  If you think pensioners are complaining now imagine if they were paying £1200 extra in income tax while their children were paying the same as before
  
  Truss removing the social care levy has a lot to blame for here - it would have been nice to have a separate tax that could be used tax pensioners with.

  Let them moan.
  
  It's the right thing to do.
  
  And it won't cost the Government many votes either since they didn't win many votes from that demographic anyway.
  
  So what have they got to lose?
  
  So Starmer won't do it. Because he's shit, no other reason.

  Labour got 28% of 60-69 year olds and 20% of 70+, according to YouGov https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49978-how-britain-voted-in-the-2024-general-election . It's not their strongest demographic group, but that's still a lot of votes. That's more votes than the LibDems, Reform or Green got in any age category.

  2
• Nigel_Foremain Posts: 14,851

  January 13

  Luckyguy1983 said:

  JosiasJessop said:

  numbertwelve said:

  JosiasJessop said:

  I listened to some of Starmer's AI speech as I drove to the pool today. Leaving aside the content, his delivery is awful. It might work in a court or meeting, but it just doesn't work when he has to deliver a message to the public, or sell a policy.
  
  He should really have got this sorted years ago. Thatcher had voice coaching, as I recall.

  He can do sober and serious.
  
  He is absolutely appalling at selling a vision.
  
  He could be announcing the magic gun policy that would get the economy booming, fix the NHS and education, give us a world beating railway service, abolish income tax and ban pineapple on pizzas and it would still sound like the lamest policy imaginable.

  If he isn't excited by what he's saying, why should anyone else be?
  
  It's sad that it matter, but it does. Blair could do it well; so could Cameron. May was better than Brown; even Sunak was better than Starmer in this regard - though all he had to sell was some rancid butter.

  I'm sorry but Starmer's issues are not presentational. He is presiding over an authoritarian approach to free speech, a lamentable lack of action on genuine crime, a massive increase in boat arrivals, taxes that are putting people out of business, an energy policy that's destroying the economy and impoverishing consumers in favour of windmill owning sovereign wealth funds, and bunging £9bn at someone for them to take a colony from us. He could be a mixture of Joanna Lumley and Mary Berry and he still wouldn't be able to sell that turd sandwich.

  The old management principle of the shit sandwich used to be used when you had to tell someone something they needed to improve by telling them something good, then the something bad, then the something good. Starmer and his bunch of amateurs have all three layers made of excrement, and they seem to be proud of it.

  2
• Omnium Posts: 11,798

  January 13

  Big_G_NorthWales said:

  Omnium said:

  Big_G_NorthWales said:

  No 10 clarifies position that Reeves will be chancellor for the whole parliament
  
  Starmer is hopeless at politics

  I think rather the opposite. Completely the right decision, and completely right to bang it out there.

  He shouldn't have got in the position no 10 had to clarify it

  She is IT though - she is Labour's economic policy. There's nobody that can pick up the reins should she be dismissed. Reeves is far far better than Brown or Balls or any of the other Labour jokers. Labour have after all suggested that Annalise Dodds, and John McDonnell would be worthy of handling the nation's finances.

  0
• Driver Posts: 5,560

  January 13

  bondegezou said:

  Luckyguy1983 said:

  JosiasJessop said:

  numbertwelve said:

  JosiasJessop said:

  I listened to some of Starmer's AI speech as I drove to the pool today. Leaving aside the content, his delivery is awful. It might work in a court or meeting, but it just doesn't work when he has to deliver a message to the public, or sell a policy.
  
  He should really have got this sorted years ago. Thatcher had voice coaching, as I recall.

  He can do sober and serious.
  
  He is absolutely appalling at selling a vision.
  
  He could be announcing the magic gun policy that would get the economy booming, fix the NHS and education, give us a world beating railway service, abolish income tax and ban pineapple on pizzas and it would still sound like the lamest policy imaginable.

  If he isn't excited by what he's saying, why should anyone else be?
  
  It's sad that it matter, but it does. Blair could do it well; so could Cameron. May was better than Brown; even Sunak was better than Starmer in this regard - though all he had to sell was some rancid butter.

  I'm sorry but Starmer's issues are not presentational. He is presiding over an authoritarian approach to free speech, a lamentable lack of action on genuine crime, a massive increase in boat arrivals, taxes that are putting people out of business, an energy policy that's destroying the economy and impoverishing consumers in favour of windmill owning sovereign wealth funds, and bunging £9bn at someone for them to take a colony from us. He could be a mixture of Joanna Lumley and Mary Berry and he still wouldn't be able to sell that turd sandwich.

  "an authoritarian approach to free speech": if you mean the OSA, that was introduced by the Tories.
  
  "a lamentable lack of action on genuine crime": prison releases are a necessary result of the Tories' failures.
  
  "a massive increase in boat arrivals": hasn't been massive; Labour are deporting more than the Tories did.
  
  "bunging £9bn at someone for them to take a colony from us": another Tory policy

  "the Tories", "the Tories", "the Tories", "Tory".
  
  He's PM. The buck stops with him. He needs to take some responsibility.

  0
• Jim_Miller Posts: 3,431

  January 13 edited January 13

  But policy and execution matter, too. Fareed Zakaria compares two coastal states:
  "New York, where I live, and Florida, where I often visit, provide an interesting contrast.
  
  They have comparable populations — New York with about 20 million people, Florida with 23 million. But New York state’s budget is more than double that of Florida ($239 billion vs. roughly $116 billion). New York City, which is a little more than three times the size of Miami-Dade County, has a budget of more than $100 billion, which is nearly 10 times that of Miami-Dade. New York City’s spending grew from 2012 to 2019 by 40 percent, four times the rate of inflation. Does any New Yorker feel that they got 40 percent better services during that time?"
  source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/01/04/new-york-florida-liberal-failure/
  
  BTW, New York and California have much higher rates of homelessness than Florida and Texas: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2024-AHAR-Part-1.pdf

  0
• EPG Posts: 6,739

  January 13

  Has any government of a rich democratic country shown how to increase trust, make everyone richer and get reelected?

  0
• Leon Posts: 63,505

  January 13

  eek said:

  IanB2 said:

  Nearly 5pm and it's not yet dark, FFS

  It’s very dark up here

  Pretty dark here in Rangoon

  0
• Omnium Posts: 11,798

  January 13

  EPG said:

  Has any government of a rich democratic country shown how to increase trust, make everyone richer and get reelected?

  Well Queen Victoria. Admittedly no elections.

  0
• numbertwelve Posts: 7,739

  January 13

  bondegezou said:

  numbertwelve said:

  bondegezou said:

  Alanbrooke said:

  williamglenn said:

  Alanbrooke said:

  LOL now Starmer saying Reeves will be CoE for full term
  
  wibble wibble
  
  flip flop
  
  Lammy too apparently
  
  

  He should try to emulate Prince Charles: "She has my full confidence, whatever confidence is."

  He's just painted himself in to another corner. If the country demands Reeves head on a platter, what does he do ?

  He has not painted himself into a corner. If he wants to sack her at some point in the future, this statement will have zero significance: he'll just sack her.

  It keeps the narrative going. We now have “Starmer couldn’t back Reeves at lunchtime and was forced into it later, while the markets wobble” type headlines. The BBC is leading on Reeves and the markets, not on AI.
  
  Will people pick it out as a pivotal moment a year from now? Probably not. Could it feed into the general feeling that the government is a bit rubbish, quite possibly. Starmer showed tremendous political naivety by not confirming it as soon as he was asked.

  Will people pick it out as a pivotal moment a year from now? Absolutely definitely not.
  
  The most important news today is probably what williamglenn posted at 5:08.

  I meant in terms of political outlook, not in geopolitical events to be fair. And I don’t expect it to be referenced in future. But as I say, it does feed into the perception that he’s not very good at the leadership stuff. And this stuff does matter.

  0
• Nigel_Foremain Posts: 14,851

  January 13

  numbertwelve said:

  Nigel_Foremain said:

  Jim_Miller said:

  Bill Clinton understood the importance of delivery. While he was president, he was taking lessons from a drama coach from one of the Ivy League schools. The coach came down to the White House once a month, as I recall.

  However good you are (and Clinton was good) you can always be better. That is the problem with Starmer. I suspect his arrogance makes him believe that he is a brilliant presenter, and can't be improved upon. ("...when I was the Director of Public Prosecutions...drone", yawn. The man is a bore.

  He needs to stop doing that “when I ran the Crown Prosecution Service…” anecdote stuff. It’s so dull. No-one cares. I think he thinks it sounds impressive. If they were entertaining anecdotes they might work, usually it’s just how he delegated some task or other. Dire.
  
  I have said this before, but he also has a very weak way of starting responses with a “of course it’s right that you ask that” or something of that nature. You’re immediately legitimising the other point of view, it brings you down to the level of the questioner. Not a strong way of dealing with questions.
  

  Completely agree. It would be impressive if he said nothing about it. The fact that he feels he needs to paradoxically negates it.

  1
• boulay Posts: 6,661

  January 13

  DecrepiterJohnL said:

  Jim_Miller said:

  Bill Clinton understood the importance of delivery. While he was president, he was taking lessons from a drama coach from one of the Ivy League schools. The coach came down to the White House once a month, as I recall.

  Famously, Mrs Thatcher had voice coaching. Some of us on PB have recommended today's politicians seek similar from the drama schools that sell short courses to business people.

  Voice coaching won’t work as he has that adenoidal voice, it’s a physical thing, the sort you hear in your head from Colin from accounts or Roger from health and safety. Coupled with his rather sour and puritan outlook no coaching will help. His delivery is his soul in audible form.

  6
• Nigel_Foremain Posts: 14,851

  January 13

  EPG said:

  Has any government of a rich democratic country shown how to increase trust, make everyone richer and get reelected?

  I guess the problem is that governments rarely make anyone richer, though an economy full of successful businesses does. With the exception of the Blair/Brown government, Labour governments always succeed in making most people poorer.

  2
• Alanbrooke Posts: 25,940

  January 13

  Nigel_Foremain said:

  EPG said:

  Has any government of a rich democratic country shown how to increase trust, make everyone richer and get reelected?

  I guess the problem is that governments rarely make anyone richer, though an economy full of successful businesses does. With the exception of the Blair/Brown government, Labour governments always succeed in making most people poorer.

  Brown created one of our biggest busts ever

  0
• Leon Posts: 63,505

  January 13

  This Labour government is worse than a shit sandwich, it’s an all you can eat shit buffet of shit, followed by a Henrician banquet of shit, with shit covered swans stuffed with shit, stuffed with shit covered starlings force fed on shit, the whole shitty evening rounded off by a compulsory shit-pizza-eating contest held in a shit-covered shit-house, compèred by a total shit with a shit eating grin
  

  4
• Nigel_Foremain Posts: 14,851

  January 13

  Omnium said:

  Big_G_NorthWales said:

  Omnium said:

  Big_G_NorthWales said:

  No 10 clarifies position that Reeves will be chancellor for the whole parliament
  
  Starmer is hopeless at politics

  I think rather the opposite. Completely the right decision, and completely right to bang it out there.

  He shouldn't have got in the position no 10 had to clarify it

  She is IT though - she is Labour's economic policy. There's nobody that can pick up the reins should she be dismissed. Reeves is far far better than Brown or Balls or any of the other Labour jokers. Labour have after all suggested that Annalise Dodds, and John McDonnell would be worthy of handling the nation's finances.

  On what basis is the Customer Complaints Manager better than Balls or Brown FFS? Interested to understand your logic there. So far she has not been Brown or Balls but she has succeeded in making an absolute balls of the economy and the business confidence that drives it.

  0
• EPG Posts: 6,739

  January 13

  Omnium said:

  EPG said:

  Has any government of a rich democratic country shown how to increase trust, make everyone richer and get reelected?

  Well Queen Victoria. Admittedly no elections.

  None of the major EUR/NAm countries has worked it out since Covid. Japan - but it has voted for the opposition on two occasions since the War. Labour have to solve a hard puzzle, and what's more their side of the spectrum has higher expectations of government than the other side.

  0
• Omnium Posts: 11,798

  January 13

  Nigel_Foremain said:

  Omnium said:

  Big_G_NorthWales said:

  Omnium said:

  Big_G_NorthWales said:

  No 10 clarifies position that Reeves will be chancellor for the whole parliament
  
  Starmer is hopeless at politics

  I think rather the opposite. Completely the right decision, and completely right to bang it out there.

  He shouldn't have got in the position no 10 had to clarify it

  She is IT though - she is Labour's economic policy. There's nobody that can pick up the reins should she be dismissed. Reeves is far far better than Brown or Balls or any of the other Labour jokers. Labour have after all suggested that Annalise Dodds, and John McDonnell would be worthy of handling the nation's finances.

  On what basis is the Customer Complaints Manager better than Balls or Brown FFS? Interested to understand your logic there. So far she has not been Brown or Balls but she has succeeded in making an absolute balls of the economy and the business confidence that drives it.

  Well, as said below, she is being honest.

  0
• Nigel_Foremain Posts: 14,851

  January 13

  Leon said:

  This Labour government is worse than a shit sandwich, it’s an all you can eat shit buffet of shit, followed by a Henrician banquet of shit, with shit covered swans stuffed with shit, stuffed with shit covered starlings force fed on shit, the whole shitty evening rounded off by a compulsory shit-pizza-eating contest held in a shit-covered shit-house, compèred by a total shit with a shit eating grin
  

  Lobster Thermidor aux crevettes with a Mornay shit sauce served in a Provençale manner with shallots and aubergines, garnished with shit truffle pâté, brandy and a fried egg on top and shit.
  
  (Labour supporters dressed as Vikings sing) "shit shit shit shit shit shit shit shit, shiiiit. Wonderful shit"

  1
• Nigel_Foremain Posts: 14,851

  January 13

  Alanbrooke said:

  Nigel_Foremain said:

  EPG said:

  Has any government of a rich democratic country shown how to increase trust, make everyone richer and get reelected?

  I guess the problem is that governments rarely make anyone richer, though an economy full of successful businesses does. With the exception of the Blair/Brown government, Labour governments always succeed in making most people poorer.

  Brown created one of our biggest busts ever

  Reeves is hoping to top that one.

  0
• Omnium Posts: 11,798

  January 13

  Leon said:

  This Labour government is worse than a shit sandwich, it’s an all you can eat shit buffet of shit, followed by a Henrician banquet of shit, with shit covered swans stuffed with shit, stuffed with shit covered starlings force fed on shit, the whole shitty evening rounded off by a compulsory shit-pizza-eating contest held in a shit-covered shit-house, compèred by a total shit with a shit eating grin
  

  Impressive journalism. Every phrase has meaning, every aside an insight.

  0
• david_herdson Posts: 18,357

  January 13

  algarkirk said:

  david_herdson said:

  On topic, yes. Obviously, in fact, given that RefUK+Grn are currently 32%.
  
  I'm excluding the Lib Dems from that group as they're both of fairly recent vintage as a governing party and also mainstream establishment. However, it's telling that the highest Con+Lab share this year in any poll is just 53%. As TSE noted in a thread the other day, there's a decent chance the next election ends up with no party near a majority and 4-6 blocks of quite sizeable numbers.

  The fact that the LDs have barely shifted since the election, and any movement has actually been downwards is a very compelling fact about how they are seen by the electorate when they have started to despise both Lab and Con. The seeds of an epoch making change are around.
  
  The one thing Greens and Reform have in common is their populism.

  Personally, I think there's a big gap in the field for the Lib Dems (which is, after all, why I joined them), as an alternative voice of sense. But it's not an easy sell.

  0
• squareroot2 Posts: 7,101

  January 13 edited January 13

  Omnium said:

  Nigel_Foremain said:

  Omnium said:

  Big_G_NorthWales said:

  Omnium said:

  Big_G_NorthWales said:

  No 10 clarifies position that Reeves will be chancellor for the whole parliament
  
  Starmer is hopeless at politics

  I think rather the opposite. Completely the right decision, and completely right to bang it out there.

  He shouldn't have got in the position no 10 had to clarify it

  She is IT though - she is Labour's economic policy. There's nobody that can pick up the reins should she be dismissed. Reeves is far far better than Brown or Balls or any of the other Labour jokers. Labour have after all suggested that Annalise Dodds, and John McDonnell would be worthy of handling the nation's finances.

  On what basis is the Customer Complaints Manager better than Balls or Brown FFS? Interested to understand your logic there. So far she has not been Brown or Balls but she has succeeded in making an absolute balls of the economy and the business confidence that drives it.

  Well, as said below, she is being honest.

  She's Ballsed up the economy and everyone is well and truly Browned off. There is your connection

  1
• viewcode Posts: 25,331

  January 13

  williamglenn said:

  https://x.com/javierblas/status/1878830699354165329
  
  After meeting President Trump in Mar-a-Lago, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says Canada should prepare for 25% tariffs starting on Jan 20 on all US-bound products, ***including on crude oil***.
  
  "I'm not expecting any exemptions," she told reporters

  Whilst PB witters on about the Chancellor, Trump declares economic war on the West.

  3
• Nigel_Foremain Posts: 14,851

  January 13

  david_herdson said:

  algarkirk said:

  david_herdson said:

  On topic, yes. Obviously, in fact, given that RefUK+Grn are currently 32%.
  
  I'm excluding the Lib Dems from that group as they're both of fairly recent vintage as a governing party and also mainstream establishment. However, it's telling that the highest Con+Lab share this year in any poll is just 53%. As TSE noted in a thread the other day, there's a decent chance the next election ends up with no party near a majority and 4-6 blocks of quite sizeable numbers.

  The fact that the LDs have barely shifted since the election, and any movement has actually been downwards is a very compelling fact about how they are seen by the electorate when they have started to despise both Lab and Con. The seeds of an epoch making change are around.
  
  The one thing Greens and Reform have in common is their populism.

  Personally, I think there's a big gap in the field for the Lib Dems (which is, after all, why I joined them), as an alternative voice of sense. But it's not an easy sell.

  Unfortunately their leader is best remembered as a silly stunt.

  0
• Omnium Posts: 11,798

  January 13

  squareroot2 said:

  Omnium said:

  Nigel_Foremain said:

  Omnium said:

  Big_G_NorthWales said:

  Omnium said:

  Big_G_NorthWales said:

  No 10 clarifies position that Reeves will be chancellor for the whole parliament
  
  Starmer is hopeless at politics

  I think rather the opposite. Completely the right decision, and completely right to bang it out there.

  He shouldn't have got in the position no 10 had to clarify it

  She is IT though - she is Labour's economic policy. There's nobody that can pick up the reins should she be dismissed. Reeves is far far better than Brown or Balls or any of the other Labour jokers. Labour have after all suggested that Annalise Dodds, and John McDonnell would be worthy of handling the nation's finances.

  On what basis is the Customer Complaints Manager better than Balls or Brown FFS? Interested to understand your logic there. So far she has not been Brown or Balls but she has succeeded in making an absolute balls of the economy and the business confidence that drives it.

  Well, as said below, she is being honest.

  She's ballsed up the economy and everyone is well and truly browned off. There is your connection

  Nonsense. She may well be ballsing up the economy in the future, but it'd be unfair to hang past crimes at her door.

  1
• noneoftheabove Posts: 24,941

  January 13

  viewcode said:

  williamglenn said:

  https://x.com/javierblas/status/1878830699354165329
  
  After meeting President Trump in Mar-a-Lago, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says Canada should prepare for 25% tariffs starting on Jan 20 on all US-bound products, ***including on crude oil***.
  
  "I'm not expecting any exemptions," she told reporters

  Whilst PB witters on about the Chancellor, Trump declares economic war on the West.

  Yeah, wood, trees and all that.

  1
• Nigel_Foremain Posts: 14,851

  January 13

  Omnium said:

  Nigel_Foremain said:

  Omnium said:

  Big_G_NorthWales said:

  Omnium said:

  Big_G_NorthWales said:

  No 10 clarifies position that Reeves will be chancellor for the whole parliament
  
  Starmer is hopeless at politics

  I think rather the opposite. Completely the right decision, and completely right to bang it out there.

  He shouldn't have got in the position no 10 had to clarify it

  She is IT though - she is Labour's economic policy. There's nobody that can pick up the reins should she be dismissed. Reeves is far far better than Brown or Balls or any of the other Labour jokers. Labour have after all suggested that Annalise Dodds, and John McDonnell would be worthy of handling the nation's finances.

  On what basis is the Customer Complaints Manager better than Balls or Brown FFS? Interested to understand your logic there. So far she has not been Brown or Balls but she has succeeded in making an absolute balls of the economy and the business confidence that drives it.

  Well, as said below, she is being honest.

  Not sure honesty is her best suit. If you excuse the intentional pun.

  0