A magnificent pile-on on Starmer and Reeves on PB today. Still, they can console themselves with the thought that they've got four years to convince the PB cognoscenti that they're not as shit as reported in January 2025. Whether PB can maintain the pile-on for another four years is a different matter. It could become tedious.
I think it's complacent in the extreme to think that just because you win a landslide in one GE that public opinion is essentially irrelevant and you can do whatever you like for a full 5 years, and with little consequence.
Politics doesn't work like that.
The 2019 parliament demonstrates that very clearly.
Though whether the Tories have someone as capable as SKS to reverse their bloodbath is far from clear.
Clue: it doesn't look like Badenoch.
At this stage of opposition Capability Keir was somewhere between pointing at wallpaper and christening The Johnson Variant
Yep, and delivered the worst defeat of the Tories in 2 centuries.
That's pretty damned capable as LOTO.
Nigel Farage did that.
Is Nigel Farage PM?
I must have missed that. I thought he just had a taxi-full of MPs.
A magnificent pile-on on Starmer and Reeves on PB today. Still, they can console themselves with the thought that they've got four years to convince the PB cognoscenti that they're not as shit as reported in January 2025. Whether PB can maintain the pile-on for another four years is a different matter. It could become tedious.
I think it's complacent in the extreme to think that just because you win a landslide in one GE that public opinion is essentially irrelevant and you can do whatever you like for a full 5 years, and with little consequence.
Politics doesn't work like that.
The 2019 parliament demonstrates that very clearly.
Though whether the Tories have someone as capable as SKS to reverse their bloodbath is far from clear.
Clue: it doesn't look like Badenoch.
At this stage of opposition Capability Keir was somewhere between pointing at wallpaper and christening The Johnson Variant
Yep, and delivered the worst defeat of the Tories in 2 centuries.
That's pretty damned capable as LOTO.
Nigel Farage did that.
It might be silly to suggest there were no factors other than Starmer, but I think it'd also be silly to suggest he had nothing to do with it. Like suggesting the only reason Boris won in 2019 was because of Corbyn.
A magnificent pile-on on Starmer and Reeves on PB today. Still, they can console themselves with the thought that they've got four years to convince the PB cognoscenti that they're not as shit as reported in January 2025. Whether PB can maintain the pile-on for another four years is a different matter. It could become tedious.
I think it's complacent in the extreme to think that just because you win a landslide in one GE that public opinion is essentially irrelevant and you can do whatever you like for a full 5 years, and with little consequence.
Politics doesn't work like that.
The 2019 parliament demonstrates that very clearly.
Though whether the Tories have someone as capable as SKS to reverse their bloodbath is far from clear.
Clue: it doesn't look like Badenoch.
"Capable".
Chortle.
To be fair, he was a decent LOTO in the sense that he managed to drag his party back to electability, and didn’t frighten the horses. Id give him some credit. It’s a hard job to do well. I’d say he did it competently.
I think it’s somewhat overly and unrealistically hagiographic to suggest that he was some political genius though. He was the luckiest general in politics, being pitted against a party that just kept self-imploding, and he could only muster 33.7% of the vote when polling time came, against the worst government in living memory.
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 ?
Starmer is flexible on past promises, so I don't think it would be a problem. If he wants to fire Reeves and keep his promise then it's simple, just call an election!
A magnificent pile-on on Starmer and Reeves on PB today. Still, they can console themselves with the thought that they've got four years to convince the PB cognoscenti that they're not as shit as reported in January 2025. Whether PB can maintain the pile-on for another four years is a different matter. It could become tedious.
I think it's complacent in the extreme to think that just because you win a landslide in one GE that public opinion is essentially irrelevant and you can do whatever you like for a full 5 years, and with little consequence.
Politics doesn't work like that.
The 2019 parliament demonstrates that very clearly.
Though whether the Tories have someone as capable as SKS to reverse their bloodbath is far from clear.
Clue: it doesn't look like Badenoch.
"Capable".
Chortle.
Capable of turning around a record electoral defeat?
Yep, he did that.
He looked a dead duck in his first year as LOTO, so very unwise and complacent to count him out now.
Non sequitur.
He won much as Theresa May did in the 2016 Conservative Leadership Election did: because he kept quiet and rivals all took each other out.
A magnificent pile-on on Starmer and Reeves on PB today. Still, they can console themselves with the thought that they've got four years to convince the PB cognoscenti that they're not as shit as reported in January 2025. Whether PB can maintain the pile-on for another four years is a different matter. It could become tedious.
I think it's complacent in the extreme to think that just because you win a landslide in one GE that public opinion is essentially irrelevant and you can do whatever you like for a full 5 years, and with little consequence.
Politics doesn't work like that.
The 2019 parliament demonstrates that very clearly.
Though whether the Tories have someone as capable as SKS to reverse their bloodbath is far from clear.
Clue: it doesn't look like Badenoch.
At this stage of opposition Capability Keir was somewhere between pointing at wallpaper and christening The Johnson Variant
Yep, and delivered the worst defeat of the Tories in 2 centuries.
That's pretty damned capable as LOTO.
Nigel Farage did that.
No he didn't.
If I wanted to avoid crediting Starmer I think I'd prefer to apportion blame on Johnson and Truss ably assisted by Kwarteng, Braverman, Patel and Jenrick. With of course a supporting cast of Jenkyns, Francois, Baker and Leadsom.
A magnificent pile-on on Starmer and Reeves on PB today. Still, they can console themselves with the thought that they've got four years to convince the PB cognoscenti that they're not as shit as reported in January 2025. Whether PB can maintain the pile-on for another four years is a different matter. It could become tedious.
I think it's complacent in the extreme to think that just because you win a landslide in one GE that public opinion is essentially irrelevant and you can do whatever you like for a full 5 years, and with little consequence.
Politics doesn't work like that.
The 2019 parliament demonstrates that very clearly.
Though whether the Tories have someone as capable as SKS to reverse their bloodbath is far from clear.
Clue: it doesn't look like Badenoch.
"Capable".
Chortle.
To be fair, he was a decent LOTO in the sense that he managed to drag his party back to electability, and didn’t frighten the horses. Id give him some credit. It’s a hard job to do well. I’d say he did it competently.
I think it’s somewhat overly and unrealistically hagiographic to suggest that he was some political genius though. He was the luckiest general in politics, being pitted against a party that just kept self-imploding, and he could only muster 33.7% of the vote when polling time came, against the worst government in living memory.
His ming vase strategy wasn't so much a strategy as playing to his strengths.
He didn't have a plan or an idea anyway, so he just made a virtue of it.
A magnificent pile-on on Starmer and Reeves on PB today. Still, they can console themselves with the thought that they've got four years to convince the PB cognoscenti that they're not as shit as reported in January 2025. Whether PB can maintain the pile-on for another four years is a different matter. It could become tedious.
I think it's complacent in the extreme to think that just because you win a landslide in one GE that public opinion is essentially irrelevant and you can do whatever you like for a full 5 years, and with little consequence.
Politics doesn't work like that.
The 2019 parliament demonstrates that very clearly.
Though whether the Tories have someone as capable as SKS to reverse their bloodbath is far from clear.
Clue: it doesn't look like Badenoch.
"Capable".
Chortle.
To be fair, he was a decent LOTO in the sense that he managed to drag his party back to electability, and didn’t frighten the horses. Id give him some credit. It’s a hard job to do well. I’d say he did it competently.
I think it’s somewhat overly and unrealistically hagiographic to suggest that he was some political genius though. He was the luckiest general in politics, being pitted against a party that just kept self-imploding, and he could only muster 33.7% of the vote when polling time came, against the worst government in living memory.
Yep, but you can only defeat the opposition that turns up, and he did deliver a thrashing unprecedented in 2 centuries.
A magnificent pile-on on Starmer and Reeves on PB today. Still, they can console themselves with the thought that they've got four years to convince the PB cognoscenti that they're not as shit as reported in January 2025. Whether PB can maintain the pile-on for another four years is a different matter. It could become tedious.
I think it's complacent in the extreme to think that just because you win a landslide in one GE that public opinion is essentially irrelevant and you can do whatever you like for a full 5 years, and with little consequence.
Politics doesn't work like that.
I don’t think that’s what @Northern_AI (or is it @Northern_Al ) is saying. I don’t see any evidence that Labour are ignoring or would ignore public opinion, but possibly the views of their staunchest opponents on PB, who would hate them whatever they did, can be ignored?
I hope we all agree that a government 6 months into a Parliament with a huge majority should be more focused on delivery than on chasing the polls.
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.
You are right to point out that Trump is by far the biggest threat to the economy, but that's why a competent Chancellor, and PM, with a deliverable plan matters. Labour should have been preparing us for Trump 2.0 since the general election. Does anyone think that the UK has been Trump-proofed?
Would Rishi have really made us 'Trump-proof'?
Rishi wouldn't have: (a) paid to surrender British territory to a foreign power in hock to China (b) not committed to Reparations (c) not asked the Unions to name their price and (d) not sent Tory party staffers to campaign for the Democrats.
So, for political and economic resilience: yeah, it certainly would have helped.
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.
You are right to point out that Trump is by far the biggest threat to the economy, but that's why a competent Chancellor, and PM, with a deliverable plan matters. Labour should have been preparing us for Trump 2.0 since the general election. Does anyone think that the UK has been Trump-proofed?
Would Rishi have really made us 'Trump-proof'?
Rishi wouldn't have: (a) paid to surrender British territory to a foreign power in hock to China (b) not committed to Reparations (c) not asked the Unions to name their price and (d) not sent Tory party staffers to campaign for the Democrats.
So, for political and economic resilience: yeah, it certainly would have helped.
Sunak’s government was negotiating (a). Starmer has not committed the UK to reparations. The Labour government largely followed pay review boards’ advice rather than asking the unions to name their price.
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.
You are right to point out that Trump is by far the biggest threat to the economy, but that's why a competent Chancellor, and PM, with a deliverable plan matters. Labour should have been preparing us for Trump 2.0 since the general election. Does anyone think that the UK has been Trump-proofed?
Would Rishi have really made us 'Trump-proof'?
Rishi wouldn't have: (a) paid to surrender British territory to a foreign power in hock to China (b) not committed to Reparations (c) not asked the Unions to name their price and (d) not sent Tory party staffers to campaign for the Democrats.
So, for political and economic resilience: yeah, it certainly would have helped.
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.
You are right to point out that Trump is by far the biggest threat to the economy, but that's why a competent Chancellor, and PM, with a deliverable plan matters. Labour should have been preparing us for Trump 2.0 since the general election. Does anyone think that the UK has been Trump-proofed?
Would Rishi have really made us 'Trump-proof'?
Rishi wouldn't have: (a) paid to surrender British territory to a foreign power in hock to China (b) not committed to Reparations (c) not asked the Unions to name their price and (d) not sent Tory party staffers to campaign for the Democrats.
So, for political and economic resilience: yeah, it certainly would have helped.
Sunak’s government was negotiating (a). Starmer has not committed the UK to reparations. The Labour government largely followed pay review boards’ advice rather than asking the unions to name their price.
No, it wasn't. And your second point is pathetically weak.
Again, I don't think you're even convincing yourself.
A magnificent pile-on on Starmer and Reeves on PB today. Still, they can console themselves with the thought that they've got four years to convince the PB cognoscenti that they're not as shit as reported in January 2025. Whether PB can maintain the pile-on for another four years is a different matter. It could become tedious.
I think it's complacent in the extreme to think that just because you win a landslide in one GE that public opinion is essentially irrelevant and you can do whatever you like for a full 5 years, and with little consequence.
Politics doesn't work like that.
I don’t think that’s what @Northern_AI (or is it @Northern_Al ) is saying. I don’t see any evidence that Labour are ignoring or would ignore public opinion, but possibly the views of their staunchest opponents on PB, who would hate them whatever they did, can be ignored?
I hope we all agree that a government 6 months into a Parliament with a huge majority should be more focused on delivery than on chasing the polls.
Polls only come round when a leader has a plan and is vindicated by results.
He is no leader, has no plan, and is achieving terrible results.
A magnificent pile-on on Starmer and Reeves on PB today. Still, they can console themselves with the thought that they've got four years to convince the PB cognoscenti that they're not as shit as reported in January 2025. Whether PB can maintain the pile-on for another four years is a different matter. It could become tedious.
I think it's complacent in the extreme to think that just because you win a landslide in one GE that public opinion is essentially irrelevant and you can do whatever you like for a full 5 years, and with little consequence.
Politics doesn't work like that.
The 2019 parliament demonstrates that very clearly.
Though whether the Tories have someone as capable as SKS to reverse their bloodbath is far from clear.
Clue: it doesn't look like Badenoch.
"Capable".
Chortle.
To be fair, he was a decent LOTO in the sense that he managed to drag his party back to electability, and didn’t frighten the horses. Id give him some credit. It’s a hard job to do well. I’d say he did it competently.
I think it’s somewhat overly and unrealistically hagiographic to suggest that he was some political genius though. He was the luckiest general in politics, being pitted against a party that just kept self-imploding, and he could only muster 33.7% of the vote when polling time came, against the worst government in living memory.
Yep, but you can only defeat the opposition that turns up, and he did deliver a thrashing unprecedented in 2 centuries.
He did not. Labour were simply the most proximate ejection mechanism in most seats.
As Pulpstar said it was like 650 by-elections, which is how Reform and the Greens weirdly got those seats and the LDs did so well.
A magnificent pile-on on Starmer and Reeves on PB today. Still, they can console themselves with the thought that they've got four years to convince the PB cognoscenti that they're not as shit as reported in January 2025. Whether PB can maintain the pile-on for another four years is a different matter. It could become tedious.
I think it's complacent in the extreme to think that just because you win a landslide in one GE that public opinion is essentially irrelevant and you can do whatever you like for a full 5 years, and with little consequence.
Politics doesn't work like that.
I don’t think that’s what @Northern_AI (or is it @Northern_Al ) is saying. I don’t see any evidence that Labour are ignoring or would ignore public opinion, but possibly the views of their staunchest opponents on PB, who would hate them whatever they did, can be ignored?
I hope we all agree that a government 6 months into a Parliament with a huge majority should be more focused on delivery than on chasing the polls.
It does seem that there is quite a lot of delivery going on, at least in my line, but also the Home Office is doing well on both visa numbers and on deportations Let's see if Rayner can get those houses built too.
I reckon that Labour will deliver improvements across a wide range of their objectives, and I think the economic gloom way overstated.
The real test at the next GE will be whether voters believe the facts or whether they believe the myths put out. I wouldn't count on the truth winning.
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.
You are right to point out that Trump is by far the biggest threat to the economy, but that's why a competent Chancellor, and PM, with a deliverable plan matters. Labour should have been preparing us for Trump 2.0 since the general election. Does anyone think that the UK has been Trump-proofed?
Would Rishi have really made us 'Trump-proof'?
Rishi wouldn't have: (a) paid to surrender British territory to a foreign power in hock to China (b) not committed to Reparations (c) not asked the Unions to name their price and (d) not sent Tory party staffers to campaign for the Democrats.
So, for political and economic resilience: yeah, it certainly would have helped.
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.
You are right to point out that Trump is by far the biggest threat to the economy, but that's why a competent Chancellor, and PM, with a deliverable plan matters. Labour should have been preparing us for Trump 2.0 since the general election. Does anyone think that the UK has been Trump-proofed?
Would Rishi have really made us 'Trump-proof'?
Rishi wouldn't have: (a) paid to surrender British territory to a foreign power in hock to China (b) not committed to Reparations (c) not asked the Unions to name their price and (d) not sent Tory party staffers to campaign for the Democrats.
So, for political and economic resilience: yeah, it certainly would have helped.
Sunak’s government was negotiating (a). Starmer has not committed the UK to reparations. The Labour government largely followed pay review boards’ advice rather than asking the unions to name their price.
No, it wasn't. And your second point is pathetically weak.
Again, I don't think you're even convincing yourself.
Your mind reading powers are legendary, Casino. I don’t know why the rest of us even bother posting when you already know what we’re really thinking.
Just a reminder it is just one week to Trump !!!!!!
Maybe there should be a thread on which potential executive order will provoke the most hysteria.
Abolishing birthright citizenship in contravention of the Constitution.
So is trying to overthrow the government, but that didn't stop him.
No, I was answering williamglenn’s musing. I think the executive order to abolish birthright citizenship is the one that will provoke the most hysteria (arguably justifiably so).
A magnificent pile-on on Starmer and Reeves on PB today. Still, they can console themselves with the thought that they've got four years to convince the PB cognoscenti that they're not as shit as reported in January 2025. Whether PB can maintain the pile-on for another four years is a different matter. It could become tedious.
I think it's complacent in the extreme to think that just because you win a landslide in one GE that public opinion is essentially irrelevant and you can do whatever you like for a full 5 years, and with little consequence.
Politics doesn't work like that.
The 2019 parliament demonstrates that very clearly.
Though whether the Tories have someone as capable as SKS to reverse their bloodbath is far from clear.
Clue: it doesn't look like Badenoch.
At this stage of opposition Capability Keir was somewhere between pointing at wallpaper and christening The Johnson Variant
Yep, and delivered the worst defeat of the Tories in 2 centuries.
That's pretty damned capable as LOTO.
Nigel Farage did that.
It might be silly to suggest there were no factors other than Starmer, but I think it'd also be silly to suggest he had nothing to do with it. Like suggesting the only reason Boris won in 2019 was because of Corbyn.
Probably not the only reason, but definitely the main reason
A magnificent pile-on on Starmer and Reeves on PB today. Still, they can console themselves with the thought that they've got four years to convince the PB cognoscenti that they're not as shit as reported in January 2025. Whether PB can maintain the pile-on for another four years is a different matter. It could become tedious.
I think it's complacent in the extreme to think that just because you win a landslide in one GE that public opinion is essentially irrelevant and you can do whatever you like for a full 5 years, and with little consequence.
Politics doesn't work like that.
I don’t think that’s what @Northern_AI (or is it @Northern_Al ) is saying. I don’t see any evidence that Labour are ignoring or would ignore public opinion, but possibly the views of their staunchest opponents on PB, who would hate them whatever they did, can be ignored?
I hope we all agree that a government 6 months into a Parliament with a huge majority should be more focused on delivery than on chasing the polls.
It does seem that there is quite a lot of delivery going on, at least in my line, but also the Home Office is doing well on both visa numbers and on deportations Let's see if Rayner can get those houses built too.
I reckon that Labour will deliver improvements across a wide range of their objectives, and I think the economic gloom way overstated.
The real test at the next GE will be whether voters believe the facts or whether they believe the myths put out. I wouldn't count on the truth winning.
They need to get the messaging right. By which I mean, when Trump crashes the global economy, they need to keep repeating how Trump has crashed the global economy.
At the moment if Labour doesn't succeed it looks like voters will elect a very hung parliament, neither turning for the Tories or any other party for a majority government. Though the LDs or Reform may end up Kingmakers in a hung parliament
Tory redemption could take a while. I suspect it is very much reliant on a Reform implosion, which on the balance of probabilities is highly likely.
To an extent but Reform are also taking Labour votes now too not just Tory ones
A magnificent pile-on on Starmer and Reeves on PB today. Still, they can console themselves with the thought that they've got four years to convince the PB cognoscenti that they're not as shit as reported in January 2025. Whether PB can maintain the pile-on for another four years is a different matter. It could become tedious.
I think it's complacent in the extreme to think that just because you win a landslide in one GE that public opinion is essentially irrelevant and you can do whatever you like for a full 5 years, and with little consequence.
Politics doesn't work like that.
The 2019 parliament demonstrates that very clearly.
Though whether the Tories have someone as capable as SKS to reverse their bloodbath is far from clear.
Clue: it doesn't look like Badenoch.
"Capable".
Chortle.
To be fair, he was a decent LOTO in the sense that he managed to drag his party back to electability, and didn’t frighten the horses. Id give him some credit. It’s a hard job to do well. I’d say he did it competently.
I think it’s somewhat overly and unrealistically hagiographic to suggest that he was some political genius though. He was the luckiest general in politics, being pitted against a party that just kept self-imploding, and he could only muster 33.7% of the vote when polling time came, against the worst government in living memory.
Yep, but you can only defeat the opposition that turns up, and he did deliver a thrashing unprecedented in 2 centuries.
He did not. Labour were simply the most proximate ejection mechanism in most seats.
As Pulpstar said it was like 650 by-elections, which is how Reform and the Greens weirdly got those seats and the LDs did so well.
You are still in denial of the scale of your parties defeat.
The Tories need a Starmer figure who can win against the odds.
To a degree Badenoch is following the same model, trying to defeat her internal enemies first, and also announce no policies, just pure oppositionism. Let's see if it works for her, but I don't think she has the same organisational skill or backing within the party. I suppose we should know by 2028.
A magnificent pile-on on Starmer and Reeves on PB today. Still, they can console themselves with the thought that they've got four years to convince the PB cognoscenti that they're not as shit as reported in January 2025. Whether PB can maintain the pile-on for another four years is a different matter. It could become tedious.
I think it's complacent in the extreme to think that just because you win a landslide in one GE that public opinion is essentially irrelevant and you can do whatever you like for a full 5 years, and with little consequence.
Politics doesn't work like that.
I don’t think that’s what @Northern_AI (or is it @Northern_Al ) is saying. I don’t see any evidence that Labour are ignoring or would ignore public opinion, but possibly the views of their staunchest opponents on PB, who would hate them whatever they did, can be ignored?
I hope we all agree that a government 6 months into a Parliament with a huge majority should be more focused on delivery than on chasing the polls.
It does seem that there is quite a lot of delivery going on, at least in my line, but also the Home Office is doing well on both visa numbers and on deportations Let's see if Rayner can get those houses built too.
I reckon that Labour will deliver improvements across a wide range of their objectives, and I think the economic gloom way overstated.
The real test at the next GE will be whether voters believe the facts or whether they believe the myths put out. I wouldn't count on the truth winning.
They need to get the messaging right. By which I mean, when Trump crashes the global economy, they need to keep repeating how Trump has crashed the global economy.
I think it more that he will crash the US economy, with massive inflation due to Tarrifs and unfunded tax cuts. That will have ramifications of course, but will impact us much less than some other countries, not least because our goods exports to the USA are relatively modest.
A magnificent pile-on on Starmer and Reeves on PB today. Still, they can console themselves with the thought that they've got four years to convince the PB cognoscenti that they're not as shit as reported in January 2025. Whether PB can maintain the pile-on for another four years is a different matter. It could become tedious.
I think it's complacent in the extreme to think that just because you win a landslide in one GE that public opinion is essentially irrelevant and you can do whatever you like for a full 5 years, and with little consequence.
Politics doesn't work like that.
The 2019 parliament demonstrates that very clearly.
Though whether the Tories have someone as capable as SKS to reverse their bloodbath is far from clear.
Clue: it doesn't look like Badenoch.
"Capable".
Chortle.
To be fair, he was a decent LOTO in the sense that he managed to drag his party back to electability, and didn’t frighten the horses. Id give him some credit. It’s a hard job to do well. I’d say he did it competently.
I think it’s somewhat overly and unrealistically hagiographic to suggest that he was some political genius though. He was the luckiest general in politics, being pitted against a party that just kept self-imploding, and he could only muster 33.7% of the vote when polling time came, against the worst government in living memory.
Yep, but you can only defeat the opposition that turns up, and he did deliver a thrashing unprecedented in 2 centuries.
He did not. Labour were simply the most proximate ejection mechanism in most seats.
As Pulpstar said it was like 650 by-elections, which is how Reform and the Greens weirdly got those seats and the LDs did so well.
You are still in denial of the scale of your parties defeat.
The Tories need a Starmer figure who can win against the odds.
To a degree Badenoch is following the same model, trying to defeat her internal enemies first, and also announce no policies, just pure oppositionism. Let's see if it works for her, but I don't think she has the same organisational skill or backing within the party. I suppose we should know by 2028.
I can't help but feel the Tories need more than that. They feel adrift. A vaguely right-leaning raft in search of an anchor.
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.
You are right to point out that Trump is by far the biggest threat to the economy, but that's why a competent Chancellor, and PM, with a deliverable plan matters. Labour should have been preparing us for Trump 2.0 since the general election. Does anyone think that the UK has been Trump-proofed?
Would Rishi have really made us 'Trump-proof'?
Rishi wouldn't have: (a) paid to surrender British territory to a foreign power in hock to China (b) not committed to Reparations (c) not asked the Unions to name their price and (d) not sent Tory party staffers to campaign for the Democrats.
So, for political and economic resilience: yeah, it certainly would have helped.
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.
You are right to point out that Trump is by far the biggest threat to the economy, but that's why a competent Chancellor, and PM, with a deliverable plan matters. Labour should have been preparing us for Trump 2.0 since the general election. Does anyone think that the UK has been Trump-proofed?
Would Rishi have really made us 'Trump-proof'?
Rishi wouldn't have: (a) paid to surrender British territory to a foreign power in hock to China (b) not committed to Reparations (c) not asked the Unions to name their price and (d) not sent Tory party staffers to campaign for the Democrats.
So, for political and economic resilience: yeah, it certainly would have helped.
Sunak’s government was negotiating (a). Starmer has not committed the UK to reparations. The Labour government largely followed pay review boards’ advice rather than asking the unions to name their price.
No, it wasn't. And your second point is pathetically weak.
Again, I don't think you're even convincing yourself.
Your mind reading powers are legendary, Casino. I don’t know why the rest of us even bother posting when you already know what we’re really thinking.
A magnificent pile-on on Starmer and Reeves on PB today. Still, they can console themselves with the thought that they've got four years to convince the PB cognoscenti that they're not as shit as reported in January 2025. Whether PB can maintain the pile-on for another four years is a different matter. It could become tedious.
I think it's complacent in the extreme to think that just because you win a landslide in one GE that public opinion is essentially irrelevant and you can do whatever you like for a full 5 years, and with little consequence.
Politics doesn't work like that.
The 2019 parliament demonstrates that very clearly.
Though whether the Tories have someone as capable as SKS to reverse their bloodbath is far from clear.
Clue: it doesn't look like Badenoch.
"Capable".
Chortle.
To be fair, he was a decent LOTO in the sense that he managed to drag his party back to electability, and didn’t frighten the horses. Id give him some credit. It’s a hard job to do well. I’d say he did it competently.
I think it’s somewhat overly and unrealistically hagiographic to suggest that he was some political genius though. He was the luckiest general in politics, being pitted against a party that just kept self-imploding, and he could only muster 33.7% of the vote when polling time came, against the worst government in living memory.
Yep, but you can only defeat the opposition that turns up, and he did deliver a thrashing unprecedented in 2 centuries.
He did not. Labour were simply the most proximate ejection mechanism in most seats.
As Pulpstar said it was like 650 by-elections, which is how Reform and the Greens weirdly got those seats and the LDs did so well.
You are still in denial of the scale of your parties defeat.
The Tories need a Starmer figure who can win against the odds.
To a degree Badenoch is following the same model, trying to defeat her internal enemies first, and also announce no policies, just pure oppositionism. Let's see if it works for her, but I don't think she has the same organisational skill or backing within the party. I suppose we should know by 2028.
A magnificent pile-on on Starmer and Reeves on PB today. Still, they can console themselves with the thought that they've got four years to convince the PB cognoscenti that they're not as shit as reported in January 2025. Whether PB can maintain the pile-on for another four years is a different matter. It could become tedious.
I think it's complacent in the extreme to think that just because you win a landslide in one GE that public opinion is essentially irrelevant and you can do whatever you like for a full 5 years, and with little consequence.
Politics doesn't work like that.
The 2019 parliament demonstrates that very clearly.
Though whether the Tories have someone as capable as SKS to reverse their bloodbath is far from clear.
Clue: it doesn't look like Badenoch.
"Capable".
Chortle.
To be fair, he was a decent LOTO in the sense that he managed to drag his party back to electability, and didn’t frighten the horses. Id give him some credit. It’s a hard job to do well. I’d say he did it competently.
I think it’s somewhat overly and unrealistically hagiographic to suggest that he was some political genius though. He was the luckiest general in politics, being pitted against a party that just kept self-imploding, and he could only muster 33.7% of the vote when polling time came, against the worst government in living memory.
Yep, but you can only defeat the opposition that turns up, and he did deliver a thrashing unprecedented in 2 centuries.
He did not. Labour were simply the most proximate ejection mechanism in most seats.
As Pulpstar said it was like 650 by-elections, which is how Reform and the Greens weirdly got those seats and the LDs did so well.
You are still in denial of the scale of your parties defeat.
The Tories need a Starmer figure who can win against the odds.
To a degree Badenoch is following the same model, trying to defeat her internal enemies first, and also announce no policies, just pure oppositionism. Let's see if it works for her, but I don't think she has the same organisational skill or backing within the party. I suppose we should know by 2028.
Starmer won after 4 consecutive Labour GE defeats and 14 years of Tory rule and at a time of high cost of living, even Corbyn could have won most seats last July.
Kemi has a much more difficult task just 6 months into opposition but is getting a hung parliament on some polls.
Kemi does also have some key backers eg Dougie Smith, Dr No and Gove, ie those who Nadine sees as the dark forces who have taken over the Tory Party since they backed Portillo in 2001, switched to Cameron in 2005 and were key to Rishi and Kemi's rise too. Kemi also to be fair to her won the Tory MPs and members vote
A magnificent pile-on on Starmer and Reeves on PB today. Still, they can console themselves with the thought that they've got four years to convince the PB cognoscenti that they're not as shit as reported in January 2025. Whether PB can maintain the pile-on for another four years is a different matter. It could become tedious.
I think it's complacent in the extreme to think that just because you win a landslide in one GE that public opinion is essentially irrelevant and you can do whatever you like for a full 5 years, and with little consequence.
Politics doesn't work like that.
The 2019 parliament demonstrates that very clearly.
Though whether the Tories have someone as capable as SKS to reverse their bloodbath is far from clear.
Clue: it doesn't look like Badenoch.
"Capable".
Chortle.
To be fair, he was a decent LOTO in the sense that he managed to drag his party back to electability, and didn’t frighten the horses. Id give him some credit. It’s a hard job to do well. I’d say he did it competently.
I think it’s somewhat overly and unrealistically hagiographic to suggest that he was some political genius though. He was the luckiest general in politics, being pitted against a party that just kept self-imploding, and he could only muster 33.7% of the vote when polling time came, against the worst government in living memory.
Yep, but you can only defeat the opposition that turns up, and he did deliver a thrashing unprecedented in 2 centuries.
He did not. Labour were simply the most proximate ejection mechanism in most seats.
As Pulpstar said it was like 650 by-elections, which is how Reform and the Greens weirdly got those seats and the LDs did so well.
You are still in denial of the scale of your parties defeat.
The Tories need a Starmer figure who can win against the odds.
To a degree Badenoch is following the same model, trying to defeat her internal enemies first, and also announce no policies, just pure oppositionism. Let's see if it works for her, but I don't think she has the same organisational skill or backing within the party. I suppose we should know by 2028.
I can't help but feel the Tories need more than that. They feel adrift. A vaguely right-leaning raft in search of an anchor.
No, I think like Labour in 2020 they need to wallow in directionless misery for another year or two. It's an essential stage in the recovery process. The Tories need to wake up in piss stained trousers and a pool of dried vomit, and think "never again" and mean it.
A magnificent pile-on on Starmer and Reeves on PB today. Still, they can console themselves with the thought that they've got four years to convince the PB cognoscenti that they're not as shit as reported in January 2025. Whether PB can maintain the pile-on for another four years is a different matter. It could become tedious.
I think it's complacent in the extreme to think that just because you win a landslide in one GE that public opinion is essentially irrelevant and you can do whatever you like for a full 5 years, and with little consequence.
Politics doesn't work like that.
I don’t think that’s what @Northern_AI (or is it @Northern_Al ) is saying. I don’t see any evidence that Labour are ignoring or would ignore public opinion, but possibly the views of their staunchest opponents on PB, who would hate them whatever they did, can be ignored?
I hope we all agree that a government 6 months into a Parliament with a huge majority should be more focused on delivery than on chasing the polls.
It does seem that there is quite a lot of delivery going on, at least in my line, but also the Home Office is doing well on both visa numbers and on deportations Let's see if Rayner can get those houses built too.
I reckon that Labour will deliver improvements across a wide range of their objectives, and I think the economic gloom way overstated.
The real test at the next GE will be whether voters believe the facts or whether they believe the myths put out. I wouldn't count on the truth winning.
They need to get the messaging right. By which I mean, when Trump crashes the global economy, they need to keep repeating how Trump has crashed the global economy.
I think it more that he will crash the US economy, with massive inflation due to Tarrifs and unfunded tax cuts. That will have ramifications of course, but will impact us much less than some other countries, not least because our goods exports to the USA are relatively modest.
No-one wins from a trade war. Even if we’re not in the frontline, it could be a huge drag on our economy, which already isn’t in tip-top shape.
“Hey, Val, I’ve got a great idea for your next book. It’s about how a criminal mastermind almost got away with the crime of a century… stealing a camper van.”
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 ?
Starmer is flexible on past promises, so I don't think it would be a problem. If he wants to fire Reeves and keep his promise then it's simple, just call an election!
That might be easier than finding a decent replacement for Reeves that Mr Market will buy into.
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.
I can't even listen to his shuttlecock caught in his Adam's apple voice.
As soon as he comes on I turn the radio off.
It’s funny how some voices grate.
I used to find Boris’s quite awful. All that waffle and wiffle. Really started to wind me up.
Sunak’s I liked. May, Cameron were fine. Truss sounded like she was a child reading the phone book slowly - very weird. Brown’s vocal timbre was quite reassuring and solid (I found what he said annoying). The one that changed for me was Blair. For a long time I didn’t mind his weird vocal mannerisms and then there reached a point where it drove me to utter apoplexy every time he started talking. Never minded Thatcher’s - though if you were an opponent I could see how it would annoy.
Starmer is definitely in the bottom tier.
I don't mind cracking open my ranking of PM's from most to least annoying voice again:
Thatcher Sunak Starmer Major Blair May Cameron Johnson Brown Truss
Yeah, Truss wins. Personal taste, innit. But I find the south eastern accent (i.e. mist of them) can be a little grating. Brown would win, but he was just so bloody gloomy.
Blair/ Sunak (they sound the same). Cameron Brown May Starmer/Major (both nasal droners) Thatcher . . . . . Truss Johnson
A magnificent pile-on on Starmer and Reeves on PB today. Still, they can console themselves with the thought that they've got four years to convince the PB cognoscenti that they're not as shit as reported in January 2025. Whether PB can maintain the pile-on for another four years is a different matter. It could become tedious.
I think it's complacent in the extreme to think that just because you win a landslide in one GE that public opinion is essentially irrelevant and you can do whatever you like for a full 5 years, and with little consequence.
Politics doesn't work like that.
I don’t think that’s what @Northern_AI (or is it @Northern_Al ) is saying. I don’t see any evidence that Labour are ignoring or would ignore public opinion, but possibly the views of their staunchest opponents on PB, who would hate them whatever they did, can be ignored?
I hope we all agree that a government 6 months into a Parliament with a huge majority should be more focused on delivery than on chasing the polls.
It does seem that there is quite a lot of delivery going on, at least in my line, but also the Home Office is doing well on both visa numbers and on deportations Let's see if Rayner can get those houses built too.
I reckon that Labour will deliver improvements across a wide range of their objectives, and I think the economic gloom way overstated.
The real test at the next GE will be whether voters believe the facts or whether they believe the myths put out. I wouldn't count on the truth winning.
They need to get the messaging right. By which I mean, when Trump crashes the global economy, they need to keep repeating how Trump has crashed the global economy.
I think it more that he will crash the US economy, with massive inflation due to Tarrifs and unfunded tax cuts. That will have ramifications of course, but will impact us much less than some other countries, not least because our goods exports to the USA are relatively modest.
No-one wins from a trade war. Even if we’re not in the frontline, it could be a huge drag on our economy, which already isn’t in tip-top shape.
Worth noting that the British economy grew strongly from 1932 onwards, despite the self inflicted wounds of the countries imposing tarrifs. Mass home building, new industries and technologies was how the 1930s were here, while America was in the doldrums, indeed going into a second slump in the late Thirties.
Sure, it isn't guaranteed that we can do the same, and it took a pretty radical budget in 1932 to do it, but it is possible.
“Hey, Val, I’ve got a great idea for your next book. It’s about how a criminal mastermind almost got away with the crime of a century… stealing a camper van.”
At the moment if Labour doesn't succeed it looks like voters will elect a very hung parliament, neither turning for the Tories or any other party for a majority government. Though the LDs or Reform may end up Kingmakers in a hung parliament
Tory redemption could take a while. I suspect it is very much reliant on a Reform implosion, which on the balance of probabilities is highly likely.
To an extent but Reform are also taking Labour votes now too not just Tory ones
The Labour to Reformers presumably simply stay at home or continue voting Reform if Reform implode but remain on the ballot.
“Hey, Val, I’ve got a great idea for your next book. It’s about how a criminal mastermind almost got away with the crime of a century… stealing a camper van.”
Whenever I see a picture of the camper van, I keep thinking of the old 'Absolutely' Stoneybridge sketches.
A magnificent pile-on on Starmer and Reeves on PB today. Still, they can console themselves with the thought that they've got four years to convince the PB cognoscenti that they're not as shit as reported in January 2025. Whether PB can maintain the pile-on for another four years is a different matter. It could become tedious.
I think it's complacent in the extreme to think that just because you win a landslide in one GE that public opinion is essentially irrelevant and you can do whatever you like for a full 5 years, and with little consequence.
Politics doesn't work like that.
I don’t think that’s what @Northern_AI (or is it @Northern_Al ) is saying. I don’t see any evidence that Labour are ignoring or would ignore public opinion, but possibly the views of their staunchest opponents on PB, who would hate them whatever they did, can be ignored?
I hope we all agree that a government 6 months into a Parliament with a huge majority should be more focused on delivery than on chasing the polls.
It does seem that there is quite a lot of delivery going on, at least in my line, but also the Home Office is doing well on both visa numbers and on deportations Let's see if Rayner can get those houses built too.
I reckon that Labour will deliver improvements across a wide range of their objectives, and I think the economic gloom way overstated.
The real test at the next GE will be whether voters believe the facts or whether they believe the myths put out. I wouldn't count on the truth winning.
They need to get the messaging right. By which I mean, when Trump crashes the global economy, they need to keep repeating how Trump has crashed the global economy.
I think it more that he will crash the US economy, with massive inflation due to Tarrifs and unfunded tax cuts. That will have ramifications of course, but will impact us much less than some other countries, not least because our goods exports to the USA are relatively modest.
No-one wins from a trade war. Even if we’re not in the frontline, it could be a huge drag on our economy, which already isn’t in tip-top shape.
Worth noting that the British economy grew strongly from 1932 onwards, despite the self inflicted wounds of the countries imposing tarrifs. Mass home building, new industries and technologies was how the 1930s were here, while America was in the doldrums, indeed going into a second slump in the late Thirties.
Sure, it isn't guaranteed that we can do the same, and it took a pretty radical budget in 1932 to do it, but it is possible.
Don't let the Tories talk down Britain.
In 1932, weren’t we part of a large free trade zone (the British Empire)? That may have helped us weather that storm.
A magnificent pile-on on Starmer and Reeves on PB today. Still, they can console themselves with the thought that they've got four years to convince the PB cognoscenti that they're not as shit as reported in January 2025. Whether PB can maintain the pile-on for another four years is a different matter. It could become tedious.
I think it's complacent in the extreme to think that just because you win a landslide in one GE that public opinion is essentially irrelevant and you can do whatever you like for a full 5 years, and with little consequence.
Politics doesn't work like that.
I don’t think that’s what @Northern_AI (or is it @Northern_Al ) is saying. I don’t see any evidence that Labour are ignoring or would ignore public opinion, but possibly the views of their staunchest opponents on PB, who would hate them whatever they did, can be ignored?
I hope we all agree that a government 6 months into a Parliament with a huge majority should be more focused on delivery than on chasing the polls.
It does seem that there is quite a lot of delivery going on, at least in my line, but also the Home Office is doing well on both visa numbers and on deportations Let's see if Rayner can get those houses built too.
I reckon that Labour will deliver improvements across a wide range of their objectives, and I think the economic gloom way overstated.
The real test at the next GE will be whether voters believe the facts or whether they believe the myths put out. I wouldn't count on the truth winning.
They need to get the messaging right. By which I mean, when Trump crashes the global economy, they need to keep repeating how Trump has crashed the global economy.
I think it more that he will crash the US economy, with massive inflation due to Tarrifs and unfunded tax cuts. That will have ramifications of course, but will impact us much less than some other countries, not least because our goods exports to the USA are relatively modest.
No-one wins from a trade war. Even if we’re not in the frontline, it could be a huge drag on our economy, which already isn’t in tip-top shape.
Worth noting that the British economy grew strongly from 1932 onwards, despite the self inflicted wounds of the countries imposing tarrifs. Mass home building, new industries and technologies was how the 1930s were here, while America was in the doldrums, indeed going into a second slump in the late Thirties.
Sure, it isn't guaranteed that we can do the same, and it took a pretty radical budget in 1932 to do it, but it is possible.
Don't let the Tories talk down Britain.
In 1932, weren’t we part of a large free trade zone (the British Empire)? That may have helped us weather that storm.
Yes, if there were a large free trade zone nearby that we could join, it would be helpful.
I fully expect that the countries targeted by the Trump Tariffs will retaliate, but I do expect that retaliation to be targeted on the USA rather than collateral damage to other countries.
Something like that exists in Germany, but it's a shit system that nobody sane should copy.
Lowe is right, indeed such a system exists in most OECD nations, we are just the uber statist, bureaucratic taxpayer funded healthcare extreme to the get private health insurance or go without other healthcare extreme most middle income Americans of working age have to deal with
That isn't even what the article says - it basically says she stays in Val's Edinburgh flat when attending the Scottish Parliament and wants to stay over rather than head back to Glasgow..
A magnificent pile-on on Starmer and Reeves on PB today. Still, they can console themselves with the thought that they've got four years to convince the PB cognoscenti that they're not as shit as reported in January 2025. Whether PB can maintain the pile-on for another four years is a different matter. It could become tedious.
I think it's complacent in the extreme to think that just because you win a landslide in one GE that public opinion is essentially irrelevant and you can do whatever you like for a full 5 years, and with little consequence.
Politics doesn't work like that.
I don’t think that’s what @Northern_AI (or is it @Northern_Al ) is saying. I don’t see any evidence that Labour are ignoring or would ignore public opinion, but possibly the views of their staunchest opponents on PB, who would hate them whatever they did, can be ignored?
I hope we all agree that a government 6 months into a Parliament with a huge majority should be more focused on delivery than on chasing the polls.
It does seem that there is quite a lot of delivery going on, at least in my line, but also the Home Office is doing well on both visa numbers and on deportations Let's see if Rayner can get those houses built too.
I reckon that Labour will deliver improvements across a wide range of their objectives, and I think the economic gloom way overstated.
The real test at the next GE will be whether voters believe the facts or whether they believe the myths put out. I wouldn't count on the truth winning.
They need to get the messaging right. By which I mean, when Trump crashes the global economy, they need to keep repeating how Trump has crashed the global economy.
I think it more that he will crash the US economy, with massive inflation due to Tarrifs and unfunded tax cuts. That will have ramifications of course, but will impact us much less than some other countries, not least because our goods exports to the USA are relatively modest.
No-one wins from a trade war. Even if we’re not in the frontline, it could be a huge drag on our economy, which already isn’t in tip-top shape.
Worth noting that the British economy grew strongly from 1932 onwards, despite the self inflicted wounds of the countries imposing tarrifs. Mass home building, new industries and technologies was how the 1930s were here, while America was in the doldrums, indeed going into a second slump in the late Thirties.
Sure, it isn't guaranteed that we can do the same, and it took a pretty radical budget in 1932 to do it, but it is possible.
Don't let the Tories talk down Britain.
In 1932, weren’t we part of a large free trade zone (the British Empire)? That may have helped us weather that storm.
Fake news. The British Empire wasn't a free trade zone and the Indian colonial government applied tariffs to British imports during that period.
“Hey, Val, I’ve got a great idea for your next book. It’s about how a criminal mastermind almost got away with the crime of a century… stealing a camper van.”
Whenever I see a picture of the camper van, I keep thinking of the old 'Absolutely' Stoneybridge sketches.
A magnificent pile-on on Starmer and Reeves on PB today. Still, they can console themselves with the thought that they've got four years to convince the PB cognoscenti that they're not as shit as reported in January 2025. Whether PB can maintain the pile-on for another four years is a different matter. It could become tedious.
I think it's complacent in the extreme to think that just because you win a landslide in one GE that public opinion is essentially irrelevant and you can do whatever you like for a full 5 years, and with little consequence.
Politics doesn't work like that.
I don’t think that’s what @Northern_AI (or is it @Northern_Al ) is saying. I don’t see any evidence that Labour are ignoring or would ignore public opinion, but possibly the views of their staunchest opponents on PB, who would hate them whatever they did, can be ignored?
I hope we all agree that a government 6 months into a Parliament with a huge majority should be more focused on delivery than on chasing the polls.
It does seem that there is quite a lot of delivery going on, at least in my line, but also the Home Office is doing well on both visa numbers and on deportations Let's see if Rayner can get those houses built too.
I reckon that Labour will deliver improvements across a wide range of their objectives, and I think the economic gloom way overstated.
The real test at the next GE will be whether voters believe the facts or whether they believe the myths put out. I wouldn't count on the truth winning.
They need to get the messaging right. By which I mean, when Trump crashes the global economy, they need to keep repeating how Trump has crashed the global economy.
I think it more that he will crash the US economy, with massive inflation due to Tarrifs and unfunded tax cuts. That will have ramifications of course, but will impact us much less than some other countries, not least because our goods exports to the USA are relatively modest.
No-one wins from a trade war. Even if we’re not in the frontline, it could be a huge drag on our economy, which already isn’t in tip-top shape.
Worth noting that the British economy grew strongly from 1932 onwards, despite the self inflicted wounds of the countries imposing tarrifs. Mass home building, new industries and technologies was how the 1930s were here, while America was in the doldrums, indeed going into a second slump in the late Thirties.
Sure, it isn't guaranteed that we can do the same, and it took a pretty radical budget in 1932 to do it, but it is possible.
Don't let the Tories talk down Britain.
In 1932, weren’t we part of a large free trade zone (the British Empire)? That may have helped us weather that storm.
Fake news. The British Empire wasn't a free trade zone and the Indian colonial government applied tariffs to British imports during that period.
Despite the worldwide tarrifs we grew on average 3.8% over the years from 1932 to 1938.
A magnificent pile-on on Starmer and Reeves on PB today. Still, they can console themselves with the thought that they've got four years to convince the PB cognoscenti that they're not as shit as reported in January 2025. Whether PB can maintain the pile-on for another four years is a different matter. It could become tedious.
I think it's complacent in the extreme to think that just because you win a landslide in one GE that public opinion is essentially irrelevant and you can do whatever you like for a full 5 years, and with little consequence.
Politics doesn't work like that.
I don’t think that’s what @Northern_AI (or is it @Northern_Al ) is saying. I don’t see any evidence that Labour are ignoring or would ignore public opinion, but possibly the views of their staunchest opponents on PB, who would hate them whatever they did, can be ignored?
I hope we all agree that a government 6 months into a Parliament with a huge majority should be more focused on delivery than on chasing the polls.
It does seem that there is quite a lot of delivery going on, at least in my line, but also the Home Office is doing well on both visa numbers and on deportations Let's see if Rayner can get those houses built too.
I reckon that Labour will deliver improvements across a wide range of their objectives, and I think the economic gloom way overstated.
The real test at the next GE will be whether voters believe the facts or whether they believe the myths put out. I wouldn't count on the truth winning.
They need to get the messaging right. By which I mean, when Trump crashes the global economy, they need to keep repeating how Trump has crashed the global economy.
I think it more that he will crash the US economy, with massive inflation due to Tarrifs and unfunded tax cuts. That will have ramifications of course, but will impact us much less than some other countries, not least because our goods exports to the USA are relatively modest.
No-one wins from a trade war. Even if we’re not in the frontline, it could be a huge drag on our economy, which already isn’t in tip-top shape.
Worth noting that the British economy grew strongly from 1932 onwards, despite the self inflicted wounds of the countries imposing tarrifs. Mass home building, new industries and technologies was how the 1930s were here, while America was in the doldrums, indeed going into a second slump in the late Thirties.
Sure, it isn't guaranteed that we can do the same, and it took a pretty radical budget in 1932 to do it, but it is possible.
Don't let the Tories talk down Britain.
In 1932, weren’t we part of a large free trade zone (the British Empire)? That may have helped us weather that storm.
Yes, if there were a large free trade zone nearby that we could join, it would be helpful.
I fully expect that the countries targeted by the Trump Tariffs will retaliate, but I do expect that retaliation to be targeted on the USA rather than collateral damage to other countries.
By the end of the year we are likely to have a fullscale trade war between China, the EU and Mexico on one side and Trump's US on the other, maybe Japan as well if Trump raises tariffs again on their car exports to the US.
We may be able to keep out alongside most of the Anglosphere, including Canada assuming Poilievre gets in and can cut a deal with Trump the Liberals can't
“Hey, Val, I’ve got a great idea for your next book. It’s about how a criminal mastermind almost got away with the crime of a century… stealing a camper van.”
Whenever I see a picture of the camper van, I keep thinking of the old 'Absolutely' Stoneybridge sketches.
“Hey, Val, I’ve got a great idea for your next book. It’s about how a criminal mastermind almost got away with the crime of a century… stealing a camper van.”
Whenever I see a picture of the camper van, I keep thinking of the old 'Absolutely' Stoneybridge sketches.
“Hey, Val, I’ve got a great idea for your next book. It’s about how a criminal mastermind almost got away with the crime of a century… stealing a camper van.”
Whenever I see a picture of the camper van, I keep thinking of the old 'Absolutely' Stoneybridge sketches.
“Hey, Val, I’ve got a great idea for your next book. It’s about how a criminal mastermind almost got away with the crime of a century… stealing a camper van.”
Whenever I see a picture of the camper van, I keep thinking of the old 'Absolutely' Stoneybridge sketches.
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.
You are right to point out that Trump is by far the biggest threat to the economy, but that's why a competent Chancellor, and PM, with a deliverable plan matters. Labour should have been preparing us for Trump 2.0 since the general election. Does anyone think that the UK has been Trump-proofed?
Would Rishi have really made us 'Trump-proof'?
Rishi wouldn't have: (a) paid to surrender British territory to a foreign power in hock to China (b) not committed to Reparations (c) not asked the Unions to name their price and (d) not sent Tory party staffers to campaign for the Democrats.
So, for political and economic resilience: yeah, it certainly would have helped.
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.
You are right to point out that Trump is by far the biggest threat to the economy, but that's why a competent Chancellor, and PM, with a deliverable plan matters. Labour should have been preparing us for Trump 2.0 since the general election. Does anyone think that the UK has been Trump-proofed?
Would Rishi have really made us 'Trump-proof'?
Rishi wouldn't have: (a) paid to surrender British territory to a foreign power in hock to China (b) not committed to Reparations (c) not asked the Unions to name their price and (d) not sent Tory party staffers to campaign for the Democrats.
So, for political and economic resilience: yeah, it certainly would have helped.
Sunak’s government was negotiating (a). Starmer has not committed the UK to reparations. The Labour government largely followed pay review boards’ advice rather than asking the unions to name their price.
No it wasn't. The Truss government was, David Cameron closed down the negotiations on day one.
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.
You are right to point out that Trump is by far the biggest threat to the economy, but that's why a competent Chancellor, and PM, with a deliverable plan matters. Labour should have been preparing us for Trump 2.0 since the general election. Does anyone think that the UK has been Trump-proofed?
Would Rishi have really made us 'Trump-proof'?
Rishi wouldn't have: (a) paid to surrender British territory to a foreign power in hock to China (b) not committed to Reparations (c) not asked the Unions to name their price and (d) not sent Tory party staffers to campaign for the Democrats.
So, for political and economic resilience: yeah, it certainly would have helped.
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.
You are right to point out that Trump is by far the biggest threat to the economy, but that's why a competent Chancellor, and PM, with a deliverable plan matters. Labour should have been preparing us for Trump 2.0 since the general election. Does anyone think that the UK has been Trump-proofed?
Would Rishi have really made us 'Trump-proof'?
Rishi wouldn't have: (a) paid to surrender British territory to a foreign power in hock to China (b) not committed to Reparations (c) not asked the Unions to name their price and (d) not sent Tory party staffers to campaign for the Democrats.
So, for political and economic resilience: yeah, it certainly would have helped.
Sunak’s government was negotiating (a). Starmer has not committed the UK to reparations. The Labour government largely followed pay review boards’ advice rather than asking the unions to name their price.
No it wasn't. The Truss government was, David Cameron closed down the negotiations on day one.
With the usual Foreign Office freelancing in the background, but nothing to do with ministers.
“Hey, Val, I’ve got a great idea for your next book. It’s about how a criminal mastermind almost got away with the crime of a century… stealing a camper van.”
Whenever I see a picture of the camper van, I keep thinking of the old 'Absolutely' Stoneybridge sketches.
A magnificent pile-on on Starmer and Reeves on PB today. Still, they can console themselves with the thought that they've got four years to convince the PB cognoscenti that they're not as shit as reported in January 2025. Whether PB can maintain the pile-on for another four years is a different matter. It could become tedious.
I think it's complacent in the extreme to think that just because you win a landslide in one GE that public opinion is essentially irrelevant and you can do whatever you like for a full 5 years, and with little consequence.
Politics doesn't work like that.
The 2019 parliament demonstrates that very clearly.
Though whether the Tories have someone as capable as SKS to reverse their bloodbath is far from clear.
Clue: it doesn't look like Badenoch.
"Capable".
Chortle.
To be fair, he was a decent LOTO in the sense that he managed to drag his party back to electability, and didn’t frighten the horses. Id give him some credit. It’s a hard job to do well. I’d say he did it competently.
I think it’s somewhat overly and unrealistically hagiographic to suggest that he was some political genius though. He was the luckiest general in politics, being pitted against a party that just kept self-imploding, and he could only muster 33.7% of the vote when polling time came, against the worst government in living memory.
Yep, but you can only defeat the opposition that turns up, and he did deliver a thrashing unprecedented in 2 centuries.
He did not. Labour were simply the most proximate ejection mechanism in most seats.
As Pulpstar said it was like 650 by-elections, which is how Reform and the Greens weirdly got those seats and the LDs did so well.
You are still in denial of the scale of your parties defeat.
The Tories need a Starmer figure who can win against the odds.
To a degree Badenoch is following the same model, trying to defeat her internal enemies first, and also announce no policies, just pure oppositionism. Let's see if it works for her, but I don't think she has the same organisational skill or backing within the party. I suppose we should know by 2028.
I can't help but feel the Tories need more than that. They feel adrift. A vaguely right-leaning raft in search of an anchor.
No, I think like Labour in 2020 they need to wallow in directionless misery for another year or two. It's an essential stage in the recovery process. The Tories need to wake up in piss stained trousers and a pool of dried vomit, and think "never again" and mean it.
So, you're saying we need to have a night on the town with @Leon and wake up in his flat?
A magnificent pile-on on Starmer and Reeves on PB today. Still, they can console themselves with the thought that they've got four years to convince the PB cognoscenti that they're not as shit as reported in January 2025. Whether PB can maintain the pile-on for another four years is a different matter. It could become tedious.
I think it's complacent in the extreme to think that just because you win a landslide in one GE that public opinion is essentially irrelevant and you can do whatever you like for a full 5 years, and with little consequence.
Politics doesn't work like that.
I don’t think that’s what @Northern_AI (or is it @Northern_Al ) is saying. I don’t see any evidence that Labour are ignoring or would ignore public opinion, but possibly the views of their staunchest opponents on PB, who would hate them whatever they did, can be ignored?
I hope we all agree that a government 6 months into a Parliament with a huge majority should be more focused on delivery than on chasing the polls.
It does seem that there is quite a lot of delivery going on, at least in my line, but also the Home Office is doing well on both visa numbers and on deportations Let's see if Rayner can get those houses built too.
I reckon that Labour will deliver improvements across a wide range of their objectives, and I think the economic gloom way overstated.
The real test at the next GE will be whether voters believe the facts or whether they believe the myths put out. I wouldn't count on the truth winning.
They need to get the messaging right. By which I mean, when Trump crashes the global economy, they need to keep repeating how Trump has crashed the global economy.
I think it more that he will crash the US economy, with massive inflation due to Tarrifs and unfunded tax cuts. That will have ramifications of course, but will impact us much less than some other countries, not least because our goods exports to the USA are relatively modest.
No-one wins from a trade war. Even if we’re not in the frontline, it could be a huge drag on our economy, which already isn’t in tip-top shape.
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.
You are right to point out that Trump is by far the biggest threat to the economy, but that's why a competent Chancellor, and PM, with a deliverable plan matters. Labour should have been preparing us for Trump 2.0 since the general election. Does anyone think that the UK has been Trump-proofed?
Would Rishi have really made us 'Trump-proof'?
Rishi wouldn't have: (a) paid to surrender British territory to a foreign power in hock to China (b) not committed to Reparations (c) not asked the Unions to name their price and (d) not sent Tory party staffers to campaign for the Democrats.
So, for political and economic resilience: yeah, it certainly would have helped.
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.
You are right to point out that Trump is by far the biggest threat to the economy, but that's why a competent Chancellor, and PM, with a deliverable plan matters. Labour should have been preparing us for Trump 2.0 since the general election. Does anyone think that the UK has been Trump-proofed?
Would Rishi have really made us 'Trump-proof'?
Rishi wouldn't have: (a) paid to surrender British territory to a foreign power in hock to China (b) not committed to Reparations (c) not asked the Unions to name their price and (d) not sent Tory party staffers to campaign for the Democrats.
So, for political and economic resilience: yeah, it certainly would have helped.
Sunak’s government was negotiating (a). Starmer has not committed the UK to reparations. The Labour government largely followed pay review boards’ advice rather than asking the unions to name their price.
No it wasn't. The Truss government was, David Cameron closed down the negotiations on day one.
“Hey, Val, I’ve got a great idea for your next book. It’s about how a criminal mastermind almost got away with the crime of a century… stealing a camper van.”
Whenever I see a picture of the camper van, I keep thinking of the old 'Absolutely' Stoneybridge sketches.
“Hey, Val, I’ve got a great idea for your next book. It’s about how a criminal mastermind almost got away with the crime of a century… stealing a camper van.”
Whenever I see a picture of the camper van, I keep thinking of the old 'Absolutely' Stoneybridge sketches.
“Hey, Val, I’ve got a great idea for your next book. It’s about how a criminal mastermind almost got away with the crime of a century… stealing a camper van.”
Whenever I see a picture of the camper van, I keep thinking of the old 'Absolutely' Stoneybridge sketches.
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.
You are right to point out that Trump is by far the biggest threat to the economy, but that's why a competent Chancellor, and PM, with a deliverable plan matters. Labour should have been preparing us for Trump 2.0 since the general election. Does anyone think that the UK has been Trump-proofed?
Would Rishi have really made us 'Trump-proof'?
Rishi wouldn't have: (a) paid to surrender British territory to a foreign power in hock to China (b) not committed to Reparations (c) not asked the Unions to name their price and (d) not sent Tory party staffers to campaign for the Democrats.
So, for political and economic resilience: yeah, it certainly would have helped.
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.
You are right to point out that Trump is by far the biggest threat to the economy, but that's why a competent Chancellor, and PM, with a deliverable plan matters. Labour should have been preparing us for Trump 2.0 since the general election. Does anyone think that the UK has been Trump-proofed?
Would Rishi have really made us 'Trump-proof'?
Rishi wouldn't have: (a) paid to surrender British territory to a foreign power in hock to China (b) not committed to Reparations (c) not asked the Unions to name their price and (d) not sent Tory party staffers to campaign for the Democrats.
So, for political and economic resilience: yeah, it certainly would have helped.
Sunak’s government was negotiating (a). Starmer has not committed the UK to reparations. The Labour government largely followed pay review boards’ advice rather than asking the unions to name their price.
No it wasn't. The Truss government was, David Cameron closed down the negotiations on day one.
With the usual Foreign Office freelancing in the background, but nothing to do with ministers.
David Cameron, pbuh:
"In December 2023, when David Cameron was foreign secretary, the talks were discontinued after a paper by three legal academics said transferring the islands would be a "major self-inflected blow" for the UK.
The Labour government picked the talks back up and have now agreed to give the islands back to Mauritius, while the US and UK keep the military base."
A magnificent pile-on on Starmer and Reeves on PB today. Still, they can console themselves with the thought that they've got four years to convince the PB cognoscenti that they're not as shit as reported in January 2025. Whether PB can maintain the pile-on for another four years is a different matter. It could become tedious.
I think it's complacent in the extreme to think that just because you win a landslide in one GE that public opinion is essentially irrelevant and you can do whatever you like for a full 5 years, and with little consequence.
Politics doesn't work like that.
The 2019 parliament demonstrates that very clearly.
Though whether the Tories have someone as capable as SKS to reverse their bloodbath is far from clear.
Clue: it doesn't look like Badenoch.
At this stage of opposition Capability Keir was somewhere between pointing at wallpaper and christening The Johnson Variant
Yep, and delivered the worst defeat of the Tories in 2 centuries.
That's pretty damned capable as LOTO.
Nigel Farage did that.
No he didn't.
If I wanted to avoid crediting Starmer I think I'd prefer to apportion blame on Johnson and Truss ably assisted by Kwarteng, Braverman, Patel and Jenrick. With of course a supporting cast of Jenkyns, Francois, Baker and Leadsom.
I can't see any Reform voters being that bothered. They aren't ideological socialists - I'd think they'd be largely glad of the extra NHS capacity if other people opted out.
OK, taking this seriously for a moment, when would people opt out? On their eighteenth birthdays?
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.
You are right to point out that Trump is by far the biggest threat to the economy, but that's why a competent Chancellor, and PM, with a deliverable plan matters. Labour should have been preparing us for Trump 2.0 since the general election. Does anyone think that the UK has been Trump-proofed?
Trump is focused on China, the EU, Canada and Mexico first for his tariffs.
One benefit of Brexit is we are at the back of his tariffs queue
Trump hasn't got the attention span to focus on anything for a meaningful length of time.
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.
You are right to point out that Trump is by far the biggest threat to the economy, but that's why a competent Chancellor, and PM, with a deliverable plan matters. Labour should have been preparing us for Trump 2.0 since the general election. Does anyone think that the UK has been Trump-proofed?
Would Rishi have really made us 'Trump-proof'?
Rishi wouldn't have: (a) paid to surrender British territory to a foreign power in hock to China (b) not committed to Reparations (c) not asked the Unions to name their price and (d) not sent Tory party staffers to campaign for the Democrats.
So, for political and economic resilience: yeah, it certainly would have helped.
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.
You are right to point out that Trump is by far the biggest threat to the economy, but that's why a competent Chancellor, and PM, with a deliverable plan matters. Labour should have been preparing us for Trump 2.0 since the general election. Does anyone think that the UK has been Trump-proofed?
Would Rishi have really made us 'Trump-proof'?
Rishi wouldn't have: (a) paid to surrender British territory to a foreign power in hock to China (b) not committed to Reparations (c) not asked the Unions to name their price and (d) not sent Tory party staffers to campaign for the Democrats.
So, for political and economic resilience: yeah, it certainly would have helped.
Sunak’s government was negotiating (a). Starmer has not committed the UK to reparations. The Labour government largely followed pay review boards’ advice rather than asking the unions to name their price.
No it wasn't. The Truss government was, David Cameron closed down the negotiations on day one.
With the usual Foreign Office freelancing in the background, but nothing to do with ministers.
David Cameron, pbuh:
"In December 2023, when David Cameron was foreign secretary, the talks were discontinued after a paper by three legal academics said transferring the islands would be a "major self-inflected blow" for the UK.
The Labour government picked the talks back up and have now agreed to give the islands back to Mauritius, while the US and UK keep the military base."
Yes I agree, it was to Cameron's credit to stop the talks officially. But civil servants were keeping things warm for the incoming government unofficially.
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.
You are right to point out that Trump is by far the biggest threat to the economy, but that's why a competent Chancellor, and PM, with a deliverable plan matters. Labour should have been preparing us for Trump 2.0 since the general election. Does anyone think that the UK has been Trump-proofed?
Would Rishi have really made us 'Trump-proof'?
Rishi wouldn't have: (a) paid to surrender British territory to a foreign power in hock to China (b) not committed to Reparations (c) not asked the Unions to name their price and (d) not sent Tory party staffers to campaign for the Democrats.
So, for political and economic resilience: yeah, it certainly would have helped.
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.
You are right to point out that Trump is by far the biggest threat to the economy, but that's why a competent Chancellor, and PM, with a deliverable plan matters. Labour should have been preparing us for Trump 2.0 since the general election. Does anyone think that the UK has been Trump-proofed?
Would Rishi have really made us 'Trump-proof'?
Rishi wouldn't have: (a) paid to surrender British territory to a foreign power in hock to China (b) not committed to Reparations (c) not asked the Unions to name their price and (d) not sent Tory party staffers to campaign for the Democrats.
So, for political and economic resilience: yeah, it certainly would have helped.
Sunak’s government was negotiating (a). Starmer has not committed the UK to reparations. The Labour government largely followed pay review boards’ advice rather than asking the unions to name their price.
No it wasn't. The Truss government was, David Cameron closed down the negotiations on day one.
Negotiations took place under Cleverly, he was Rishi Sunak's Foreign Secretary not just Truss's. If Cameron 'closed down the negotiations on day one' that proves they were happening under Sunak's Government.
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.
AIUi he rarely appeared in court - back room paperwork lawyer
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.
You are right to point out that Trump is by far the biggest threat to the economy, but that's why a competent Chancellor, and PM, with a deliverable plan matters. Labour should have been preparing us for Trump 2.0 since the general election. Does anyone think that the UK has been Trump-proofed?
Would Rishi have really made us 'Trump-proof'?
Rishi wouldn't have: (a) paid to surrender British territory to a foreign power in hock to China (b) not committed to Reparations (c) not asked the Unions to name their price and (d) not sent Tory party staffers to campaign for the Democrats.
So, for political and economic resilience: yeah, it certainly would have helped.
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.
You are right to point out that Trump is by far the biggest threat to the economy, but that's why a competent Chancellor, and PM, with a deliverable plan matters. Labour should have been preparing us for Trump 2.0 since the general election. Does anyone think that the UK has been Trump-proofed?
Would Rishi have really made us 'Trump-proof'?
Rishi wouldn't have: (a) paid to surrender British territory to a foreign power in hock to China (b) not committed to Reparations (c) not asked the Unions to name their price and (d) not sent Tory party staffers to campaign for the Democrats.
So, for political and economic resilience: yeah, it certainly would have helped.
Sunak’s government was negotiating (a). Starmer has not committed the UK to reparations. The Labour government largely followed pay review boards’ advice rather than asking the unions to name their price.
No it wasn't. The Truss government was, David Cameron closed down the negotiations on day one.
Negotiations took place under Cleverly, he was Rishi Sunak's Foreign Secretary not just Truss's. If Cameron 'closed down the negotiations on day one' that proves they were happening under Sunak's Government.
Cleverly was a hold over from the Truss government and they just kept those policies going, Dave actually saw the danger after being appointed and binned it. Though yes, on a technical level I'm sure some negotiation took place until Dave binned the idea. Now we just have to hope Trump bins the whole thing.
Comments
I must have missed that. I thought he just had a taxi-full of MPs.
I think it’s somewhat overly and unrealistically hagiographic to suggest that he was some political genius though. He was the luckiest general in politics, being pitted against a party that just kept self-imploding, and he could only muster 33.7% of the vote when polling time came, against the worst government in living memory.
He won much as Theresa May did in the 2016 Conservative Leadership Election did: because he kept quiet and rivals all took each other out.
If I wanted to avoid crediting Starmer I think I'd prefer to apportion blame on Johnson and Truss ably assisted by Kwarteng, Braverman, Patel and Jenrick. With of course a supporting cast of Jenkyns, Francois, Baker and Leadsom.
He didn't have a plan or an idea anyway, so he just made a virtue of it.
Works. Until you get into office.
I hope we all agree that a government 6 months into a Parliament with a huge majority should be more focused on delivery than on chasing the polls.
Looks like Starmer is getting ready to fire Reeves, judging by the lead story on the BBC.
That could cause ructions all around - financial and political. I hope for his sake he knows what he's doing.
Again, I don't think you're even convincing yourself.
He is no leader, has no plan, and is achieving terrible results.
As Pulpstar said it was like 650 by-elections, which is how Reform and the Greens weirdly got those seats and the LDs did so well.
I reckon that Labour will deliver improvements across a wide range of their objectives, and I think the economic gloom way overstated.
The real test at the next GE will be whether voters believe the facts or whether they believe the myths put out. I wouldn't count on the truth winning.
The Tories need a Starmer figure who can win against the odds.
To a degree Badenoch is following the same model, trying to defeat her internal enemies first, and also announce no policies, just pure oppositionism. Let's see if it works for her, but I don't think she has the same organisational skill or backing within the party. I suppose we should know by 2028.
Sorry.
Try again.
Kemi has a much more difficult task just 6 months into opposition but is getting a hung parliament on some polls.
Kemi does also have some key backers eg Dougie Smith, Dr No and Gove, ie those who Nadine sees as the dark forces who have taken over the Tory Party since they backed Portillo in 2001, switched to Cameron in 2005 and were key to Rishi and Kemi's rise too. Kemi also to be fair to her won the Tory MPs and members vote
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14279655/Nicola-Sturgeon-luxury-flat-author-Val-McDermid-split-husband-Peter-Murrell.html
Cameron
Brown
May
Starmer/Major (both nasal droners)
Thatcher
.
.
.
.
.
Truss
Johnson
Sure, it isn't guaranteed that we can do the same, and it took a pretty radical budget in 1932 to do it, but it is possible.
Don't let the Tories talk down Britain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q00N6N8yDRk
I fully expect that the countries targeted by the Trump Tariffs will retaliate, but I do expect that retaliation to be targeted on the USA rather than collateral damage to other countries.
Sturgeon should have gone full oligarch bling like Putin. If you are going to do it, flaunt it.
We may be able to keep out alongside most of the Anglosphere, including Canada assuming Poilievre gets in and can cut a deal with Trump the Liberals can't
Very early in the year for a visit from the three ghosts of xmas but hey...
Labour are doing a cracking job of that.
This is the news of the day.
Ed Balls tells millions on GMB that pineapple on pizza is "disgusting"
Huge row.
Scenes.
https://x.com/GMB/status/1878698882953015588
Glen Sannox has finally entered service.
It's like the mark of Cain for me.
"In December 2023, when David Cameron was foreign secretary, the talks were discontinued after a paper by three legal academics said transferring the islands would be a "major self-inflected blow" for the UK.
The Labour government picked the talks back up and have now agreed to give the islands back to Mauritius, while the US and UK keep the military base."
On their eighteenth birthdays?
Neil Henderson
@hendopolis
·
5s
TELEGRAPH: PM throws Reeves’s future into doubt #TomorrowsPapersToday
STAR: Should we be popping out for another lettuce? #TomorrowsPapersToday
https://bsky.app/profile/hendopolis.bsky.social/post/3lfnph5aeak24
NEW: YouGov / Sky News / Times voting intention poll
(Comparison with GE24)
🔴Labour 26% (35%)
🟤Reform UK 25% (15%)
🔵Conservatives 22% (24%)
🟡Lib Dem 14% (13%)
🟢Greens 8% (7%)
* Reform 1 point behind Labour
* Tories in third place
* Only 10% say this gvt “successful”
https://x.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1878924993503133751
https://news.sky.com/story/reform-within-touching-distance-of-labour-poll-finds-13286697
I would take that if I was Starmer at the moment!! LOL
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1878849564528255000?t=EJNb_bJkoexYzezfSflw1g&s=19
The big questions are now 1) what is Reform’s ceiling 2) what is Labour’s floor and 3) will any more of the Tory vote jump ship.