I'd like it noted in the PB Almanac that I was the first PBer to start hating Starmer, and also the first to point out that he was very hate-able and I was not alone in the hating
Admittedly, this achievement is somewhat muted by the fact I also voted for him, literally, him, in my constituency, but still
Now everyone hates Starmer and I feel like the cool kid who found a great new band and then watches as everyone else likes them later, and he doesn't feel cool any more. Probably coz he wasn't
What if Burnham finds a seat then stands but in the meantime Labour find a new leader .
Let’s say he wins the by-election won’t the whole saga then continue as he enters parliament and a section of Labour MPs think oh look what we could have had .
He’s Portillo circa 2001. His only achievement is undermining the leadership.
What can’t Labour see that Starmer is still its best chance of a 2029 win, if they back him, deliver some stuff, and look united?
Because he is genuinely HATED
How many times do PBers have to be told this. Yes, it's probably not rational. Yes, it's an unpleasant emotion. Yes, it's tough for poor Skyr with his trillion pound pension
But, nonetheless, he is hated, in a way we've only ever seen before with Thatcher, but - unlike Starmer - Thatcher was a also a titanic figure who was revered by millions on her own side. Starmer hasn't got any of that, he's just hated. Voters say it, polls show it, I feel it. I hate him in a way I cannot always explain
Labour MPs constantly mentioned this during the campaign, on the doorstep, how Starmer was a MASSIVE problem. Ergo, he has to go, or Labour will never get a hearing
You might hate him but be careful what you wish for. Things aren't likely to improve with his departure, in fact they could get a good deal worse.
I know, which is why I admit the feeling is not entirely rational. If I was being coldly logical, I would probably want the useless Starmer to stay on, as he is such a brilliant recruiting sergeant for Reform, and I loathe Labour and want them to die. Starmer is the poison that could easily kill them
But I am being honest. He does invoke this fierce contempt, which might on a bad day be called hatred. The treachery, the greed, the narcissism, the lying, the cowardice, the spitefulness, the egotism, the way he dumps anyone as a way of avoiding blame. He is genuinely loathsome, and his voice makes me puke, I can't bear to hear it
If it was just me with these crazy weird feelz it wouldn't be an issue. But obvs it is not. Indeed as I mentioned a few days ago I had drinks with a very centre Dad liberal lefty friend who is solidly Labour. Two years ago he supported Starmer. A year ago he expressed weary disappointment but a willingness to perservere with Skyr. Last week I saw hatred,. His eyes narrowed, he snarled: "I want him gone. Not tomorrow. Today"
True story. The fascinating thing is that his reasons for hating Starmer are totally different to mine. But he hates him too
My sense is the left can't deal with the reality of the situation. The level of public debt and borrowing, the problems with multiculturalism, economic challenges relating to jobs, productivity, housing and security. They are struggling for answers so blaming Starmer is the easiest thing to do.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
Thanks for the question Maxh.
I think what has been agreed across the board, including by Starmer, is that the 'Boriswave' has seen immigration on a scale where successful integration (let alone assimilation) is simply not possible. That isn't a judgement on people, it's just a fact. Neither our welfare system nor our society can cope with immigration at that speed, in those numbers, from those places. So regrettably, those people must return home.
With regard to the wider point about Reform's attitude to immigration, Reform are civic nationalists. They don't care about colour or religion (prominent figures are Muslim), but loyalty to the State. So religion is something for the private sphere, strict crackdown on Sharia, probably banning the Burqa and Niquab, and end to the 'community policing' approach that has let some communities police themselves, but if you choose to be 'one of us' you are welcome. I cannot disagree with this approach. There simply cannot be any long-term sense in giving bunk space to large numbers of people whose loyalty lies with either a different state, or a concept like a global caliphate. What happens when there's a war (God forbid) and everyone needs to sign up? A nation needs some sort of glue to hold it together.
I also don't take your point that 'Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity = unnalloyed racism'. It is not that we are more worthy of it, but we should certainly expect that our Government prioritises it over the wealth and prosperity of other peoples - that is what any Government must do, and it seems to be a uniquely British approach that the wellbeing of non-British subjects should be prioritised above those of British ones. It breaks the social contract.
This civic nationalism approach is different to Restore, which has very prominent supporters and figures (not their actual policies as yet) who are ethno-nationalists. They believe in a particular sense of belonging here for those with British descent, and that mass migration as a whole needs to be reversed, and the country of The Haywane and Miss Marple 'restored'.
Thanks for the thoughtful response, as ever. I'd argue that (much like I am with the Greens) you are seeing the most optimistic possible picture of what Reform actually is, but I can totally understand that given what the other parties offer.
On your civic nationalism, I can see it is an excellent defence of that optimistic version of Reform. I hope that is what comes to pass.
The most dispiriting thing is the de-humanisation of a group of people who came to the UK , who are on ILR and are now sitting and wondering whether they might get deported in 3 years .
This human cost seems just ignored . Can you imagine being in this position? Not knowing whether your kids might be pulled out of school , lose everything they’ve ever known , lose your job .
If governments want to change laws they should not be retrospective. The Reform policy is disgusting, inhumane and immoral .
Even in Trumps America they haven’t gone this far !
Do all Reform voters actually know what this policy actually means ?
Are people really okay with this ?
Because if they are then truly this country is totally fxcked .
They don't care, the world doesn't work for them.
I am 47 years old, in the first 46 years I was racially/religious abused once, not it's been twice in the last 12 months.
It's like listening to the Reform/Restore campaign.
'Did you come over here on a boat? You must have to afford a new iPhone/iPad etc.'
I agree that racism is getting worse, and more flagrant amongst some, and that is deplorable and regrettable.
I also think that to retain harmony and social cohesion, we cannot import people on the scale of the last 10 years. We need to resolve that.
Number one priority for any Government should be to fix the courts to get cases heard more quickly, and so (in this case - it will help in lots of other policy areas too) have consequences land much closer to incidents of racism being reported. Stopping bad behaviour through fear of consequences isn’t a long term solution for a nice country, but it can’t hurt.
A friend took his students to present to the people behind Forest City, proposal for 400,000 new affordable homes and city infrastructure in the Oxford/Cambridge corridor. Opposition to it is led by West Suffolk MP Nick Timothy*
*whose greatest achievement was electoral advice to Theresa May
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
You’re right, I’m not a Reform supporter but I don’t hate them or the communities that support them.
On terms of migration I don’t like their recently announced policy on asylum seekers. I do think people with no right to remain should be removed and we don’t do that anywhere near enough. Their policy is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
I am in a part of Durham that did not elect a Reform councillor although the one I voted for defected.
I get tired of the argument this country/city was built on immigrants thst is perpetuated. I even argued that with the moron @JosiasJessop who assumed it was racist to object to that argument.
It totally devalues the contribution of the indigenous people. It was a team effort.
We have had mass inward migration of unskilled workers which harms, not helps, job prospects at the bottom of the chain.
However it is not just migration. The issue is job opportunities, deprived communities, left behind communities and Reform talks to these communities. Doesn’t say these problems are down to immigrants alone but down to the Uniparty approach that has neglected these communities.
Why should communities like Hartlepool and Bishop Auckland lose their young people to other parts of the country because there are no opportunities there.
I’m not convinced to go Reform but Labour have lost my vote.
I agree with almost all of that. Most strongly I agree that no-one other than Reform is offering the communities you mention a coherent narrative that their lives can improve. I think you give a very coherent argument for why it makes sense to support Reform if you live in one of those communities.
I'm still not sure it answers the question of why immigrants should be less able to access the opportunities that exist in the UK than people born here.
Thanks for the reply.
That question is answered on the most basic grounds of practicality.
Allowing the rest of the world to 'access the opportunities that exist in the UK' without restriction would rapidly turn the UK into a vastly overpopulated third world failed state.
Agreed, in practical terms. My question is about the intellectual defence of this, though. If Reform is the answer because we aren't able to create the structures to share the benefits of prosperity in a way that doesn't destroy us, it's our failure in my view.
What if Burnham finds a seat then stands but in the meantime Labour find a new leader .
Let’s say he wins the by-election won’t the whole saga then continue as he enters parliament and a section of Labour MPs think oh look what we could have had .
He’s Portillo circa 2001. His only achievement is undermining the leadership.
What can’t Labour see that Starmer is still its best chance of a 2029 win, if they back him, deliver some stuff, and look united?
Because he is genuinely HATED
How many times do PBers have to be told this. Yes, it's probably not rational. Yes, it's an unpleasant emotion. Yes, it's tough for poor Skyr with his trillion pound pension
But, nonetheless, he is hated, in a way we've only ever seen before with Thatcher, but - unlike Starmer - Thatcher was a also a titanic figure who was revered by millions on her own side. Starmer hasn't got any of that, he's just hated. Voters say it, polls show it, I feel it. I hate him in a way I cannot always explain
Labour MPs constantly mentioned this during the campaign, on the doorstep, how Starmer was a MASSIVE problem. Ergo, he has to go, or Labour will never get a hearing
The polling would have implied that of Cameron in 2012.
In the May elections of that year his approval was -31% whereas Starmer looks to be about -45% now.
The difference is that Tory voters stuck with Cameron whilst Labour voters have, as ever, decided that Starmer fails their purity test and is a neo-Nazi. Or something.
But come the election, in order to avoid Reform, they’d vote for him. And crucially so would some “safety first” Tories. That’s less true of many of his rivals.
In a forced choice most people you would hope would chose Starmar and Labour than Farage and his corrupt blackshirts. Farage is just a shallow but very manipulative populist with his dog whistle politics having no real answers to this country’s problems.
I'll make the same point I have made before. Many on the left say they are tired of Starmerism and want something more progressive. Well what exactly. A wealth tax? A full review of council tax bands? And what would the money be spent on? The fixation on getting closer to the EU just suggests they are out of ideas.
Hasn't Burnham suggested increasing borrowing by £40bn to nationalise utilities and increase welfare ?
What if Burnham finds a seat then stands but in the meantime Labour find a new leader .
Let’s say he wins the by-election won’t the whole saga then continue as he enters parliament and a section of Labour MPs think oh look what we could have had .
He’s Portillo circa 2001. His only achievement is undermining the leadership.
What can’t Labour see that Starmer is still its best chance of a 2029 win, if they back him, deliver some stuff, and look united?
Because he is genuinely HATED
How many times do PBers have to be told this. Yes, it's probably not rational. Yes, it's an unpleasant emotion. Yes, it's tough for poor Skyr with his trillion pound pension
But, nonetheless, he is hated, in a way we've only ever seen before with Thatcher, but - unlike Starmer - Thatcher was a also a titanic figure who was revered by millions on her own side. Starmer hasn't got any of that, he's just hated. Voters say it, polls show it, I feel it. I hate him in a way I cannot always explain
Labour MPs constantly mentioned this during the campaign, on the doorstep, how Starmer was a MASSIVE problem. Ergo, he has to go, or Labour will never get a hearing
You might hate him but be careful what you wish for. Things aren't likely to improve with his departure, in fact they could get a good deal worse.
I know, which is why I admit the feeling is not entirely rational. If I was being coldly logical, I would probably want the useless Starmer to stay on, as he is such a brilliant recruiting sergeant for Reform, and I loathe Labour and want them to die. Starmer is the poison that could easily kill them
But I am being honest. He does invoke this fierce contempt, which might on a bad day be called hatred. The treachery, the greed, the narcissism, the lying, the cowardice, the spitefulness, the egotism, the way he dumps anyone as a way of avoiding blame. He is genuinely loathsome, and his voice makes me puke, I can't bear to hear it
If it was just me with these crazy weird feelz it wouldn't be an issue. But obvs it is not. Indeed as I mentioned a few days ago I had drinks with a very centre Dad liberal lefty friend who is solidly Labour. Two years ago he supported Starmer. A year ago he expressed weary disappointment but a willingness to perservere with Skyr. Last week I saw hatred,. His eyes narrowed, he snarled: "I want him gone. Not tomorrow. Today"
True story. The fascinating thing is that his reasons for hating Starmer are totally different to mine. But he hates him too
My sense is the left can't deal with the reality of the situation. The level of public debt and borrowing, the problems with multiculturalism, economic challenges relating to jobs, productivity, housing and security. They are struggling for answers so blaming Starmer is the easiest thing to do.
That's actually a very fair summary of what my friend emotes. After he'd snarled about Starmer I asked him what the next leader should do differently, and he wasn't exactly full of brilliant ideas. The main one was "stop chasing Reform votes and proclaim the virtues of immigration". Hmm. It sounds virtuous but that is a tough tough sell to a nation that has taken 5m immigrants in almost as many years, and basically wants all migration stopped and quite a lot of people to go
As for economic policies, there were none from my friend. So I suspect you are right. On the left, Starmer is getting the blame for the complete and final failure of the whole social democratic, woke, multiculti, mass migration, borrow and spend model
That's extremely hard to accept, so find a scapegoat. Skyr
maxh - if people have been indoctrinated from birth to believe that ancient texts are the literal word of God and that such texts are not simply there to help you have a personal interior relationship with God but a practical guide to how you live your life, including politics, then such people are very unlikely to assimilate into life in the UK. Why is this so hard to understand?
That’s rather hard on our Marxists. But fair, in many ways.
I remain an optimist. The world is due a boom due to pent up demand, and we are sufficiently well integrated with the other western economies to do well from it. A few 3% growth years and things will look a lot different (including an end to endless EU debates).
We all just need to hope Farage isn’t the lucky recipient of said boom.
I'd like it noted in the PB Almanac that I was the first PBer to start hating Starmer, and also the first to point out that he was very hate-able and I was not alone in the hating
Admittedly, this achievement is somewhat muted by the fact I also voted for him, literally, him, in my constituency, but still
Now everyone hates Starmer and I feel like the cool kid who found a great new band and then watches as everyone else likes them later, and he doesn't feel cool any more. Probably coz he wasn't
What if Burnham finds a seat then stands but in the meantime Labour find a new leader .
Let’s say he wins the by-election won’t the whole saga then continue as he enters parliament and a section of Labour MPs think oh look what we could have had .
He’s Portillo circa 2001. His only achievement is undermining the leadership.
What can’t Labour see that Starmer is still its best chance of a 2029 win, if they back him, deliver some stuff, and look united?
Because he is genuinely HATED
How many times do PBers have to be told this. Yes, it's probably not rational. Yes, it's an unpleasant emotion. Yes, it's tough for poor Skyr with his trillion pound pension
But, nonetheless, he is hated, in a way we've only ever seen before with Thatcher, but - unlike Starmer - Thatcher was a also a titanic figure who was revered by millions on her own side. Starmer hasn't got any of that, he's just hated. Voters say it, polls show it, I feel it. I hate him in a way I cannot always explain
Labour MPs constantly mentioned this during the campaign, on the doorstep, how Starmer was a MASSIVE problem. Ergo, he has to go, or Labour will never get a hearing
You might hate him but be careful what you wish for. Things aren't likely to improve with his departure, in fact they could get a good deal worse.
I know, which is why I admit the feeling is not entirely rational. If I was being coldly logical, I would probably want the useless Starmer to stay on, as he is such a brilliant recruiting sergeant for Reform, and I loathe Labour and want them to die. Starmer is the poison that could easily kill them
But I am being honest. He does invoke this fierce contempt, which might on a bad day be called hatred. The treachery, the greed, the narcissism, the lying, the cowardice, the spitefulness, the egotism, the way he dumps anyone as a way of avoiding blame. He is genuinely loathsome, and his voice makes me puke, I can't bear to hear it
If it was just me with these crazy weird feelz it wouldn't be an issue. But obvs it is not. Indeed as I mentioned a few days ago I had drinks with a very centre Dad liberal lefty friend who is solidly Labour. Two years ago he supported Starmer. A year ago he expressed weary disappointment but a willingness to perservere with Skyr. Last week I saw hatred,. His eyes narrowed, he snarled: "I want him gone. Not tomorrow. Today"
True story. The fascinating thing is that his reasons for hating Starmer are totally different to mine. But he hates him too
My sense is the left can't deal with the reality of the situation. The level of public debt and borrowing, the problems with multiculturalism, economic challenges relating to jobs, productivity, housing and security. They are struggling for answers so blaming Starmer is the easiest thing to do.
That's actually a very fair summary of what my friend emotes. After he'd snarled about Starmer I asked him what the next leader should do differently, and he wasn't exactly full of brilliant ideas. The main one was "stop chasing Reform votes and proclaim the virtues of immigration". Hmm. It sounds virtuous but that is a tough tough sell to a nation that has taken 5m immigrants in almost as many years, and basically wants all migration stopped and quite a lot of people to go
As for economic policies, there were none from my friend. So I suspect you are right. On the left, Starmer is getting the blame for the complete and final failure of the whole social democratic, woke, multiculti, mass migration, borrow and spend model
That's extremely hard to accept, so find a scapegoat. Skyr
See also the Democrats. If you can’t pass the impossible purity test set for you, you’re a secret Nazi.
It’s why I (as a non-Starmer voter) feel sorry for him. I think he’s rubbish because he’s too wet and left wing, and his voters think he’s rubbish because he’s on the right of Enoch Powell.
I remain an optimist. The world is due a boom due to pent up demand, and we are sufficiently well integrated with the other western economies to do well from it. A few 3% growth years and things will look a lot different (including an end to endless EU debates).
We all just need to hope Farage isn’t the lucky recipient of said boom.
If Ed Miliband is the alternative Labour may as well keep Starmer. Starmer has at least won a general election, Miliband gave the Tories a majority in 2015 and Farage's old party its highest ever voteshare.
It is also not a party to the left Labour is losing most of its seats to, the Greens were a poor fifth on Thursday. It is Reform, a party of the right, who won most seats on Thursday and the centrist LDs and centre right Conservatives were third and fourth on seats won ahead of the Greens
I know that my ward is not exactly typical. However my analysis of the result is as follows: LDs lost some votes to the Greens. Tories lost more votes to Reform so the LD majority actually increased. The Greens beat Reform because they got votes from LD and Labour, whereas Reform only got votes from the Tories.
Make of that what you will.
May have been the case with you. Not here in Epping Forest where the LDs lost their one seat up to Reform and came third behind the Tories and Reform in the two wards they had won most votes and 2/3 of the seats in in 2024, one incumbent Tory holding on in Epping and the other losing to Reform in Theydon Bois (Reform also won the county seat with the Tories second and LDs falling from second in 2021 to third).
The Greens also lost their one district council seat in Buckhurst Hill to Reform and the Tories won the other Buckhurst Hill seat with the Greens falling from second to third behind Reform
In Epping Forest the Tories lost vote share of over 12% and came second for the first time ever, holding only four of twelve seats defended.
The Tories still held 4 seats, the LDs and Greens won 0 and would be wiped out at next year's unitary elections in Epping Forest if the results were repeated
Two more cycles like this year and there'll be 33 Reform and just 12 Tories. Hardly a sign of Conservative strength?
Next year Epping Forest merges with Harlow and Uttlesford to form West Essex unitary council.
In Harlow the Tories won all 11 seats up last week, taking 5 from Labour and losing 0 to Reform, arguably the best Tory result of the day, even better than Westminster. In Uttlesford the Tories also did slightly better than the Essex average
Uttlesford DC didn't have any elections yesterday. In the CC divisions covered by the DC, the Tories won just one out of five
One was won by the Residents, combining the Tory, Harlow and Uttlesford results the Tories would have at least as many councillors as Reform and could probably form the administration with Residents councillors from Uttlesford and maybe Loughton who the Tories now run EFDC with
I'd like it noted in the PB Almanac that I was the first PBer to start hating Starmer, and also the first to point out that he was very hate-able and I was not alone in the hating
Admittedly, this achievement is somewhat muted by the fact I also voted for him, literally, him, in my constituency, but still
Now everyone hates Starmer and I feel like the cool kid who found a great new band and then watches as everyone else likes them later, and he doesn't feel cool any more. Probably coz he wasn't
No you weren't.
The lately departed @isam had a march on you by about 4 years. There were others too.
maxh - if people have been indoctrinated from birth to believe that ancient texts are the literal word of God and that such texts are not simply there to help you have a personal interior relationship with God but a practical guide to how you live your life, including politics, then such people are very unlikely to assimilate into life in the UK. Why is this so hard to understand?
I can think of more than one group who have been indoctrinated from birth to believe that ancient texts are the literal word of God and that such texts are not simply there to help you have a personal interior relationship with God but a practical guide to how you live your life, including politics. And that's not just the Weefrees.
maxh - if people have been indoctrinated from birth to believe that ancient texts are the literal word of God and that such texts are not simply there to help you have a personal interior relationship with God but a practical guide to how you live your life, including politics, then such people are very unlikely to assimilate into life in the UK. Why is this so hard to understand?
I can think of more than one group who have been indoctrinated from birth to believe that ancient texts are the literal word of God and that such texts are not simply there to help you have a personal interior relationship with God but a practical guide to how you live your life, including politics. And that's not just the Weefrees.
To be fair, what you describe is broadly my view of the MCC coaching manual.
Rejoining the EU - or attempting to Rejoin (we might be vetoed) - would be easily as agonising as Brexit and probably much worse. Because quitting a club is ultimately easier than joining. Especially joining a club that isn’t sure you’d be a good member
It would five-ten years of anguished and tedious negotiations during which the EU - and every member state - would try to extract as much juice from the British Orange as possible. They would make the pips squeak
And, despite what “Ben Judah” says, we would certainly have to join the euro. It’s the one way to shackle us forever
we would not be vetoed per se. We would be told full fat including Euro and Schengen, or no.
Actually, I don't think that necessarily true. The EU is happy to have many countries indefinitely delaying Euro membership, because the time is never quite right. I have no doubt that -if we were going to be writing a large cheque- then we would get the same treatment.
No, we would be legally obligated to adopt the euro in future, under law, once we met the convergence criteria.
Even if the UK government tried to game in the medium-term it would never go away and with the way things work in the UK I could even see domestic legal challenges to compel us to join.
That's true of a whole bunch of countries, none of which have joined the Euro.
Like Sweden.
Yes but Sweden are in a very different position than us. They are members already and fairly committed to the EU. I think that if we were applying again we would be made to join the Euro right away. It would be proof of commitment and make a further withdrawal almost impossible. And since we are not France we would probably have to comply with Euro rules too which would require a sharp cut in the deficit. Which may not, in fairness, be a bad thing.
I might add that getting our borrowing rates down to ECB levels would undoubtedly be by far the biggest single gain from rejoining. It would make some sense economically.
Joining the Euro is a process that takes time. We would not have to join right away, because it’s not practical for anyone to join right away.
I never want to join the Euro. Ever.
I find it fascinating how europhiles think they can mollify eurosceptics just by saying it "takes time" and "not right away". See also "two-speed Europe". Exactly the same people who'd then shrug their shoulders a few years down the line when European politics or its treaties demanded we adopt a law, regulation or commitment despite domestic opposition.
Being disingenuous is baked in. It's calculated deception.
We've been here before, and that's precisely why we left.
The promises made for what Brexit would deliver have all turned out to be disingenuous, which is why the polling shows a large majority see Brexit as a mistake and a small majority support rejoin.
Ah, whatabouttery.
When you dig into the polling beneath the headlines, you see strong polling against the idea laws & regulations or trade deals shouldn't be made here and little desire to return to free movement (and that's before you get to the money, yet alone the currency)
That small majority that you think supports Rejoin would disappear in a flash as soon as this came into focus.
My faith in our ability to govern ourselves has been shaken by Thursday. As a country we are simply not being serious about our challenges, our choices and the consequences of those choices. Membership of the Euro removes huge areas of governance from our elected politicians, from any form of democratic oversight really. I used to believe that was a bad thing. But I am beginning to wonder.
Woah there, range rider. I never thought I'd be arguing this contra case, but here we go:
You can't automaticize politics. Politics is a battle over what is right and what is wrong, and the concepts of "right" and "wrong" change over time and place. Those things are decided at the nation-state level by the demos, and the EU is too big for a single demos (at least not yet[1]). Taking the politics out of politics is not a sufficient reason[2] to rejoin the EU.
[1] Heath thought one would develop and should, Powell thought one wouldn't develop and shouldn't. Ironically the growth of transnational affinity groups and our EU departure may have pushed things in a Heathite direction. [2] There are other reasons for rejoining, but removing the politics from politics isn't one of them.
I don't think that's mainly what's wrong with the argument about membership of the Euro.
In fact, because of the operational independence of the Bank of England and the constraints of the bond and foreign currency markets, much of the areas of governance identified are already partially outside direct democratic control. So while we would certainly lose some democratic accountability by joining the euro, we'd lose rather less than we do under EU regulation in other areas.
What is wrong with joining the Euro is the UK is an Optimal Currency Area, as defined by Mundell (1961), and the EU with the EU in it certainly is not. It has (and had when we were in the EU) insufficient labour and capital mobility, and stabilisers, in particular welfare spending, are entirely inadequately developed. The EU budget is about 1.1% of EU GDP, the UK's is about 40%. This finances completely different levels of responsiveness to asymmetric shocks.
What this means in practice is that deficit countries in the euro area will experience greatly increased instability: periods of boom as capital markets reduce risk premia, then much longer periods of recession in times of decreased risk tolerance. Most dramatically you can see this with Greece, which underwent a relatively short-lived boom in the 2000s, hit the buffers in 2007, and still hasn't recovered to its GDP in that year. As a deficit country, we would be a bigger Greece.
In addition, there is one final area of the Euro which makes for huge instability - the obsession that surplus countries, mainly Germany but also the Netherlands, France and Ireland, have for running those surpluses. This practically obliges other countries in the eurozone to be in deficit (unless the eurozone as a whole is permitted to run an unrealistically high surplus with the rest of the world), meaning that there will always be huge instability in the system somewhere.
So, overall, membership of the Euro would be an economic calamity, even more than a democratic one, as it has been for other deficit countries, and we should stay as far away from it as possible.
maxh - if people have been indoctrinated from birth to believe that ancient texts are the literal word of God and that such texts are not simply there to help you have a personal interior relationship with God but a practical guide to how you live your life, including politics, then such people are very unlikely to assimilate into life in the UK. Why is this so hard to understand?
I can think of more than one group who have been indoctrinated from birth to believe that ancient texts are the literal word of God and that such texts are not simply there to help you have a personal interior relationship with God but a practical guide to how you live your life, including politics. And that's not just the Weefrees.
To be fair, what you describe is broadly my view of the MCC coaching manual.
Yeah, but you don't believe the Ashes were divinely promised to you X years ago. There's decades of evidence to prove otherwise anyway.
maxh - if people have been indoctrinated from birth to believe that ancient texts are the literal word of God and that such texts are not simply there to help you have a personal interior relationship with God but a practical guide to how you live your life, including politics, then such people are very unlikely to assimilate into life in the UK. Why is this so hard to understand?
I can think of more than one group who have been indoctrinated from birth to believe that ancient texts are the literal word of God and that such texts are not simply there to help you have a personal interior relationship with God but a practical guide to how you live your life, including politics. And that's not just the Weefrees.
To be fair, what you describe is broadly my view of the MCC coaching manual.
Yeah, but you don't believe the Ashes were divinely promised to you X years ago. There's decades of evidence to prove otherwise anyway.
I beg to differ…
I am all for some human sacrifice to appease the great God James Anderson, who would have delivered a victory had he been selected, following the last Ashes defeat.
What if Burnham finds a seat then stands but in the meantime Labour find a new leader .
Let’s say he wins the by-election won’t the whole saga then continue as he enters parliament and a section of Labour MPs think oh look what we could have had .
He’s Portillo circa 2001. His only achievement is undermining the leadership.
What can’t Labour see that Starmer is still its best chance of a 2029 win, if they back him, deliver some stuff, and look united?
Because he is genuinely HATED
How many times do PBers have to be told this. Yes, it's probably not rational. Yes, it's an unpleasant emotion. Yes, it's tough for poor Skyr with his trillion pound pension
But, nonetheless, he is hated, in a way we've only ever seen before with Thatcher, but - unlike Starmer - Thatcher was a also a titanic figure who was revered by millions on her own side. Starmer hasn't got any of that, he's just hated. Voters say it, polls show it, I feel it. I hate him in a way I cannot always explain
Labour MPs constantly mentioned this during the campaign, on the doorstep, how Starmer was a MASSIVE problem. Ergo, he has to go, or Labour will never get a hearing
You might hate him but be careful what you wish for. Things aren't likely to improve with his departure, in fact they could get a good deal worse.
I know, which is why I admit the feeling is not entirely rational. If I was being coldly logical, I would probably want the useless Starmer to stay on, as he is such a brilliant recruiting sergeant for Reform, and I loathe Labour and want them to die. Starmer is the poison that could easily kill them
But I am being honest. He does invoke this fierce contempt, which might on a bad day be called hatred. The treachery, the greed, the narcissism, the lying, the cowardice, the spitefulness, the egotism, the way he dumps anyone as a way of avoiding blame. He is genuinely loathsome, and his voice makes me puke, I can't bear to hear it
If it was just me with these crazy weird feelz it wouldn't be an issue. But obvs it is not. Indeed as I mentioned a few days ago I had drinks with a very centre Dad liberal lefty friend who is solidly Labour. Two years ago he supported Starmer. A year ago he expressed weary disappointment but a willingness to perservere with Skyr. Last week I saw hatred,. His eyes narrowed, he snarled: "I want him gone. Not tomorrow. Today"
True story. The fascinating thing is that his reasons for hating Starmer are totally different to mine. But he hates him too
My sense is the left can't deal with the reality of the situation. The level of public debt and borrowing, the problems with multiculturalism, economic challenges relating to jobs, productivity, housing and security. They are struggling for answers so blaming Starmer is the easiest thing to do.
That's actually a very fair summary of what my friend emotes. After he'd snarled about Starmer I asked him what the next leader should do differently, and he wasn't exactly full of brilliant ideas. The main one was "stop chasing Reform votes and proclaim the virtues of immigration". Hmm. It sounds virtuous but that is a tough tough sell to a nation that has taken 5m immigrants in almost as many years, and basically wants all migration stopped and quite a lot of people to go
As for economic policies, there were none from my friend. So I suspect you are right. On the left, Starmer is getting the blame for the complete and final failure of the whole social democratic, woke, multiculti, mass migration, borrow and spend model
That's extremely hard to accept, so find a scapegoat. Skyr
See also the Democrats. If you can’t pass the impossible purity test set for you, you’re a secret Nazi.
It’s why I (as a non-Starmer voter) feel sorry for him. I think he’s rubbish because he’s too wet and left wing, and his voters think he’s rubbish because he’s on the right of Enoch Powell.
It’s perfectly possible to up with policies on immigration that would get plaudits from both left and right.
Consider going after demand, not supply. My ideas of
1) criminalising the use of “layering” - using multiple levels of “gig economy” workers. This allows big corporations to deny connection to illegal employment - sub minimum wage, delivery drivers instructed to break the law etc. 2) a big reward and indefinite leave to remain (if required) for giving evidence leading to a conviction for illegal employment, sub minimum wage pay etc 3) visa sale would get an unlimited fine plus 3 years per count
All three would attack rich scumbags who are ripping off migrants. It would kill, dead, the 3rd world style employment we see around us.
Sooner or later evidence appears to prove that everyone in the Labour party absolutely detests everyone else in the Labour party. (this may also apply to other parties)
Kevin Schofield @KevinASchofield A minister responds: “This sort of behaviour is why Josh is widely disliked and mistrusted by every part of the Labour Party. Which is some achievement from somebody who has been an MP for 20 months.”
The most dispiriting thing is the de-humanisation of a group of people who came to the UK , who are on ILR and are now sitting and wondering whether they might get deported in 3 years .
This human cost seems just ignored . Can you imagine being in this position? Not knowing whether your kids might be pulled out of school , lose everything they’ve ever known , lose your job .
If governments want to change laws they should not be retrospective. The Reform policy is disgusting, inhumane and immoral .
Even in Trumps America they haven’t gone this far !
Do all Reform voters actually know what this policy actually means ?
Are people really okay with this ?
Because if they are then truly this country is totally fxcked .
They don't care, the world doesn't work for them.
I am 47 years old, in the first 46 years I was racially/religious abused once, not it's been twice in the last 12 months.
It's like listening to the Reform/Restore campaign.
'Did you come over here on a boat? You must have to afford a new iPhone/iPad etc.'
I agree that racism is getting worse, and more flagrant amongst some, and that is deplorable and regrettable.
I also think that to retain harmony and social cohesion, we cannot import people on the scale of the last 10 years. We need to resolve that.
Number one priority for any Government should be to fix the courts to get cases heard more quickly, and so (in this case - it will help in lots of other policy areas too) have consequences land much closer to incidents of racism being reported. Stopping bad behaviour through fear of consequences isn’t a long term solution for a nice country, but it can’t hurt.
Consequences land much closer to incidents of crimes being reported.
Racism is not in itself a crime, but it often coincides with crimes, and crimes of all sorts should be swiftly dealt with.
maxh - if people have been indoctrinated from birth to believe that ancient texts are the literal word of God and that such texts are not simply there to help you have a personal interior relationship with God but a practical guide to how you live your life, including politics, then such people are very unlikely to assimilate into life in the UK. Why is this so hard to understand?
I can think of more than one group who have been indoctrinated from birth to believe that ancient texts are the literal word of God and that such texts are not simply there to help you have a personal interior relationship with God but a practical guide to how you live your life, including politics. And that's not just the Weefrees.
To be fair, what you describe is broadly my view of the MCC coaching manual.
Yeah, but you don't believe the Ashes were divinely promised to you X years ago. There's decades of evidence to prove otherwise anyway.
I beg to differ…
I am all for some human sacrifice to appease the great God James Anderson, who would have delivered a victory had he been selected, following the last Ashes defeat.
We need the Great Deity to now take 8 Middlesex wickets before they make another 60.
Sooner or later evidence appears to prove that everyone in the Labour party absolutely detests everyone else in the Labour party. (this may also apply to other parties)
Kevin Schofield @KevinASchofield A minister responds: “This sort of behaviour is why Josh is widely disliked and mistrusted by every part of the Labour Party. Which is some achievement from somebody who has been an MP for 20 months.”
I remain an optimist. The world is due a boom due to pent up demand, and we are sufficiently well integrated with the other western economies to do well from it. A few 3% growth years and things will look a lot different (including an end to endless EU debates).
We all just need to hope Farage isn’t the lucky recipient of said boom.
The world is booming just not in Western Europe.
Indeed.
And some people still believe the solution to that malaise is to integrate more with the one section of the planet not growing.
What if Burnham finds a seat then stands but in the meantime Labour find a new leader .
Let’s say he wins the by-election won’t the whole saga then continue as he enters parliament and a section of Labour MPs think oh look what we could have had .
He’s Portillo circa 2001. His only achievement is undermining the leadership.
What can’t Labour see that Starmer is still its best chance of a 2029 win, if they back him, deliver some stuff, and look united?
Because he is genuinely HATED
How many times do PBers have to be told this. Yes, it's probably not rational. Yes, it's an unpleasant emotion. Yes, it's tough for poor Skyr with his trillion pound pension
But, nonetheless, he is hated, in a way we've only ever seen before with Thatcher, but - unlike Starmer - Thatcher was a also a titanic figure who was revered by millions on her own side. Starmer hasn't got any of that, he's just hated. Voters say it, polls show it, I feel it. I hate him in a way I cannot always explain
Labour MPs constantly mentioned this during the campaign, on the doorstep, how Starmer was a MASSIVE problem. Ergo, he has to go, or Labour will never get a hearing
You might hate him but be careful what you wish for. Things aren't likely to improve with his departure, in fact they could get a good deal worse.
I know, which is why I admit the feeling is not entirely rational. If I was being coldly logical, I would probably want the useless Starmer to stay on, as he is such a brilliant recruiting sergeant for Reform, and I loathe Labour and want them to die. Starmer is the poison that could easily kill them
But I am being honest. He does invoke this fierce contempt, which might on a bad day be called hatred. The treachery, the greed, the narcissism, the lying, the cowardice, the spitefulness, the egotism, the way he dumps anyone as a way of avoiding blame. He is genuinely loathsome, and his voice makes me puke, I can't bear to hear it
If it was just me with these crazy weird feelz it wouldn't be an issue. But obvs it is not. Indeed as I mentioned a few days ago I had drinks with a very centre Dad liberal lefty friend who is solidly Labour. Two years ago he supported Starmer. A year ago he expressed weary disappointment but a willingness to perservere with Skyr. Last week I saw hatred,. His eyes narrowed, he snarled: "I want him gone. Not tomorrow. Today"
True story. The fascinating thing is that his reasons for hating Starmer are totally different to mine. But he hates him too
My sense is the left can't deal with the reality of the situation. The level of public debt and borrowing, the problems with multiculturalism, economic challenges relating to jobs, productivity, housing and security. They are struggling for answers so blaming Starmer is the easiest thing to do.
That's actually a very fair summary of what my friend emotes. After he'd snarled about Starmer I asked him what the next leader should do differently, and he wasn't exactly full of brilliant ideas. The main one was "stop chasing Reform votes and proclaim the virtues of immigration". Hmm. It sounds virtuous but that is a tough tough sell to a nation that has taken 5m immigrants in almost as many years, and basically wants all migration stopped and quite a lot of people to go
As for economic policies, there were none from my friend. So I suspect you are right. On the left, Starmer is getting the blame for the complete and final failure of the whole social democratic, woke, multiculti, mass migration, borrow and spend model
That's extremely hard to accept, so find a scapegoat. Skyr
See also the Democrats. If you can’t pass the impossible purity test set for you, you’re a secret Nazi.
It’s why I (as a non-Starmer voter) feel sorry for him. I think he’s rubbish because he’s too wet and left wing, and his voters think he’s rubbish because he’s on the right of Enoch Powell.
It’s perfectly possible to up with policies on immigration that would get plaudits from both left and right.
Consider going after demand, not supply. My ideas of
1) criminalising the use of “layering” - using multiple levels of “gig economy” workers. This allows big corporations to deny connection to illegal employment - sub minimum wage, delivery drivers instructed to break the law etc. 2) a big reward and indefinite leave to remain (if required) for giving evidence leading to a conviction for illegal employment, sub minimum wage pay etc 3) visa sale would get an unlimited fine plus 3 years per count
All three would attack rich scumbags who are ripping off migrants. It would kill, dead, the 3rd world style employment we see around us.
An inevitable tick in inflation for a year or two as the wage impacts bubbled through the economy of course, but a necessary one. We are living a fantasy at the minute. And you may actually drive investment and innovation. Those delivery drones would look more attractive.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
You’re right, I’m not a Reform supporter but I don’t hate them or the communities that support them.
On terms of migration I don’t like their recently announced policy on asylum seekers. I do think people with no right to remain should be removed and we don’t do that anywhere near enough. Their policy is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
I am in a part of Durham that did not elect a Reform councillor although the one I voted for defected.
I get tired of the argument this country/city was built on immigrants thst is perpetuated. I even argued that with the moron @JosiasJessop who assumed it was racist to object to that argument.
It totally devalues the contribution of the indigenous people. It was a team effort.
We have had mass inward migration of unskilled workers which harms, not helps, job prospects at the bottom of the chain.
However it is not just migration. The issue is job opportunities, deprived communities, left behind communities and Reform talks to these communities. Doesn’t say these problems are down to immigrants alone but down to the Uniparty approach that has neglected these communities.
Why should communities like Hartlepool and Bishop Auckland lose their young people to other parts of the country because there are no opportunities there.
I’m not convinced to go Reform but Labour have lost my vote.
I spent a few years living in Houghton-le-Spring, an ex pit village southwest of Sunderland. They have just voted in 6/6 Reform councillors. I really dislike Reform and everything they stand for, but you need to understand the realities of life in communities like Houghton.
They're proud, and they're absolutely furious. Doesn't matter what you vote for things don't change. Same in Rochdale where I grew up and a lot of Reform councillors have been elected.
The target of the frustration has been focused on immigration, but the base is poverty of opportunity. Give them a chance to make their lives have meaning and they'll be happy. Its a terrible failure of our political system that so many people rightly feel their lives sliding out of control with no prospects or even hope of turning things around.
Reform have the exact same problem as any other party - expectations. They need to deliver, or the rage will build even hotter and the votes will shift further to the extreme.
Dan Carden made the point does Labour even want to represent these people anymore.
I’m next door to Houghton-le-spring. Know parts of it well. It is poverty of opportunity and ideally a reform vote would Waken Labour up to this to do something to help these communities (breakfast clubs FFS) but they see them as sinners who need to repent.
It's funny, that's almost entirely why I am currently supporting the Greens.
Whilst some would consider me mad, I think the Labour you refer to (definite not Woke, even if Wakened) could satisfy both of us.
Celtic v Rahgers 3-1. Looks like we might be on for a last match of the season spine tingler!
COYBIG. I've seen and enjoyed a lot of Celtic titles over the years but this one would be special given the Nancy chaos at the start of the season.
I really like Martin O'Neill but just about on balance would prefer Hearts to win. Apart from anything else it would be refreshing to see exultant Jambos pooping all over the centre of Edinburgh for a change.
I enjoyed the recent Hearts v Rangers match being described as El Staunchio (Hearts generally being considered a Prod team).
Celtic v Rahgers 3-1. Looks like we might be on for a last match of the season spine tingler!
COYBIG. I've seen and enjoyed a lot of Celtic titles over the years but this one would be special given the Nancy chaos at the start of the season.
Obviously it's none of my business and football is stupid, but surely, surely anyone who isn't actively a Celtic fan is supporting Hearts? Hearts winning would be the first interesting thing to happen in Scottish football in forty years.
I'd like it noted in the PB Almanac that I was the first PBer to start hating Starmer, and also the first to point out that he was very hate-able and I was not alone in the hating
Admittedly, this achievement is somewhat muted by the fact I also voted for him, literally, him, in my constituency, but still
Now everyone hates Starmer and I feel like the cool kid who found a great new band and then watches as everyone else likes them later, and he doesn't feel cool any more. Probably coz he wasn't
No you weren't.
The lately departed @isam had a march on you by about 4 years. There were others too.
Celtic v Rahgers 3-1. Looks like we might be on for a last match of the season spine tingler!
COYBIG. I've seen and enjoyed a lot of Celtic titles over the years but this one would be special given the Nancy chaos at the start of the season.
I really like Martin O'Neill but just about on balance would prefer Hearts to win. Apart from anything else it would be refreshing to see exultant Jambos pooping all over the centre of Edinburgh for a change.
I enjoyed the recent Hearts v Rangers match being described as El Staunchio (Hearts generally being considered a Prod team).
I think they should stick with MO'N for one more season. Don't want Robbie Keane as he bears the unerasable smirch of the Zionist Entity.
If Wes Streeting has what it takes to be PM then he’ll get it done this week. He’ll never have a better opportunity than now.
If Burnham is not back as an MP then next year will be even better for Streeting as the results will likely be even worse for Labour as London has no elections and most seats up are in the English towns and shires
I'd like it noted in the PB Almanac that I was the first PBer to start hating Starmer, and also the first to point out that he was very hate-able and I was not alone in the hating
Admittedly, this achievement is somewhat muted by the fact I also voted for him, literally, him, in my constituency, but still
Now everyone hates Starmer and I feel like the cool kid who found a great new band and then watches as everyone else likes them later, and he doesn't feel cool any more. Probably coz he wasn't
No you weren't.
The lately departed @isam had a march on you by about 4 years. There were others too.
What if Burnham finds a seat then stands but in the meantime Labour find a new leader .
Let’s say he wins the by-election won’t the whole saga then continue as he enters parliament and a section of Labour MPs think oh look what we could have had .
He’s Portillo circa 2001. His only achievement is undermining the leadership.
What can’t Labour see that Starmer is still its best chance of a 2029 win, if they back him, deliver some stuff, and look united?
Because he is genuinely HATED
How many times do PBers have to be told this. Yes, it's probably not rational. Yes, it's an unpleasant emotion. Yes, it's tough for poor Skyr with his trillion pound pension
But, nonetheless, he is hated, in a way we've only ever seen before with Thatcher, but - unlike Starmer - Thatcher was a also a titanic figure who was revered by millions on her own side. Starmer hasn't got any of that, he's just hated. Voters say it, polls show it, I feel it. I hate him in a way I cannot always explain
Labour MPs constantly mentioned this during the campaign, on the doorstep, how Starmer was a MASSIVE problem. Ergo, he has to go, or Labour will never get a hearing
You might hate him but be careful what you wish for. Things aren't likely to improve with his departure, in fact they could get a good deal worse.
I know, which is why I admit the feeling is not entirely rational. If I was being coldly logical, I would probably want the useless Starmer to stay on, as he is such a brilliant recruiting sergeant for Reform, and I loathe Labour and want them to die. Starmer is the poison that could easily kill them
But I am being honest. He does invoke this fierce contempt, which might on a bad day be called hatred. The treachery, the greed, the narcissism, the lying, the cowardice, the spitefulness, the egotism, the way he dumps anyone as a way of avoiding blame. He is genuinely loathsome, and his voice makes me puke, I can't bear to hear it
If it was just me with these crazy weird feelz it wouldn't be an issue. But obvs it is not. Indeed as I mentioned a few days ago I had drinks with a very centre Dad liberal lefty friend who is solidly Labour. Two years ago he supported Starmer. A year ago he expressed weary disappointment but a willingness to perservere with Skyr. Last week I saw hatred,. His eyes narrowed, he snarled: "I want him gone. Not tomorrow. Today"
True story. The fascinating thing is that his reasons for hating Starmer are totally different to mine. But he hates him too
My sense is the left can't deal with the reality of the situation. The level of public debt and borrowing, the problems with multiculturalism, economic challenges relating to jobs, productivity, housing and security. They are struggling for answers so blaming Starmer is the easiest thing to do.
That's actually a very fair summary of what my friend emotes. After he'd snarled about Starmer I asked him what the next leader should do differently, and he wasn't exactly full of brilliant ideas. The main one was "stop chasing Reform votes and proclaim the virtues of immigration". Hmm. It sounds virtuous but that is a tough tough sell to a nation that has taken 5m immigrants in almost as many years, and basically wants all migration stopped and quite a lot of people to go
As for economic policies, there were none from my friend. So I suspect you are right. On the left, Starmer is getting the blame for the complete and final failure of the whole social democratic, woke, multiculti, mass migration, borrow and spend model
That's extremely hard to accept, so find a scapegoat. Skyr
See also the Democrats. If you can’t pass the impossible purity test set for you, you’re a secret Nazi.
It’s why I (as a non-Starmer voter) feel sorry for him. I think he’s rubbish because he’s too wet and left wing, and his voters think he’s rubbish because he’s on the right of Enoch Powell.
It’s perfectly possible to up with policies on immigration that would get plaudits from both left and right.
Consider going after demand, not supply. My ideas of
1) criminalising the use of “layering” - using multiple levels of “gig economy” workers. This allows big corporations to deny connection to illegal employment - sub minimum wage, delivery drivers instructed to break the law etc. 2) a big reward and indefinite leave to remain (if required) for giving evidence leading to a conviction for illegal employment, sub minimum wage pay etc 3) visa sale would get an unlimited fine plus 3 years per count
All three would attack rich scumbags who are ripping off migrants. It would kill, dead, the 3rd world style employment we see around us.
An inevitable tick in inflation for a year or two as the wage impacts bubbled through the economy of course, but a necessary one. We are living a fantasy at the minute. And you may actually drive investment and innovation. Those delivery drones would look more attractive.
Cheap labour drives out innovation and mechanisation. Productivity….
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
Fair enough, I appreciate you engaging at all with my verbiage.
To push you one stage further, though: do you think the problems with immigration are down to immigrants having an inherent tendency to create these problems or from lack of effort to provide adequate assimilation?
People have been fighting over land, resources and money since the dawn of time yet, in the last 25-50 years, western governments have deliberately created the conditions for land, resources and wages to be fought over in their own countries by encouraging never seen before levels of immigration from poor countries, and are now surprised that it has created huge tension.
So the poor are supposed to put up with sharing resources, lower wages, and less job security, while living cheek to jowl with the new competition and not complain else be called racist, while the rich get a massive increase in potential labour, and get richer by watching the warring factions undercut each other for work.
Pretty much 100% agree. But just as you are rightly arguing that isn't poor people's fault, nor is it immigrants' fault.
Well, no, it isn't immigrants 'fault'. I can see why they're here. They're responding rationally to incentives. But it's not good news for the rest of us.
If Wes Streeting has what it takes to be PM then he’ll get it done this week. He’ll never have a better opportunity than now.
If Burnham is not back as an MP then next year will be even better for Streeting as the results will likely be even worse for Labour as London has no elections and most seats up are in the English towns and shires
Celtic v Rahgers 3-1. Looks like we might be on for a last match of the season spine tingler!
COYBIG. I've seen and enjoyed a lot of Celtic titles over the years but this one would be special given the Nancy chaos at the start of the season.
I really like Martin O'Neill but just about on balance would prefer Hearts to win. Apart from anything else it would be refreshing to see exultant Jambos pooping all over the centre of Edinburgh for a change.
I enjoyed the recent Hearts v Rangers match being described as El Staunchio (Hearts generally being considered a Prod team).
In a similar vein, I enjoyed Stockport (the Hatters) vs Luton (the hatters) being described as 'El Hattico'. (Felt vs Straw, I believe. Imagine a time when a town could make its name by the quality of its straw hats.)
I'd like it noted in the PB Almanac that I was the first PBer to start hating Starmer, and also the first to point out that he was very hate-able and I was not alone in the hating
Admittedly, this achievement is somewhat muted by the fact I also voted for him, literally, him, in my constituency, but still
Now everyone hates Starmer and I feel like the cool kid who found a great new band and then watches as everyone else likes them later, and he doesn't feel cool any more. Probably coz he wasn't
Lol, I met him before he became leader and was like, nah. He didn't get my vote for Labour leader. And yet you literally voted for him! I don't hate him, though. Life is too short for hating anyone.
I remain an optimist. The world is due a boom due to pent up demand, and we are sufficiently well integrated with the other western economies to do well from it. A few 3% growth years and things will look a lot different (including an end to endless EU debates).
We all just need to hope Farage isn’t the lucky recipient of said boom.
Demand needs to be both paid for and supplied.
The people and countries who gain and lose from the demand, the paying and the supplying are not necessarily the same.
Ed M becoming Prime Minister would be seen as Labour holding the electorate in contempt. He has already stood before the voters as a prospective prime minister and been decisively rejected. Labour would do well to remember that.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
Fair enough, I appreciate you engaging at all with my verbiage.
To push you one stage further, though: do you think the problems with immigration are down to immigrants having an inherent tendency to create these problems or from lack of effort to provide adequate assimilation?
People have been fighting over land, resources and money since the dawn of time yet, in the last 25-50 years, western governments have deliberately created the conditions for land, resources and wages to be fought over in their own countries by encouraging never seen before levels of immigration from poor countries, and are now surprised that it has created huge tension.
So the poor are supposed to put up with sharing resources, lower wages, and less job security, while living cheek to jowl with the new competition and not complain else be called racist, while the rich get a massive increase in potential labour, and get richer by watching the warring factions undercut each other for work.
Pretty much 100% agree. But just as you are rightly arguing that isn't poor people's fault, nor is it immigrants' fault.
Well, no, it isn't immigrants 'fault'. I can see why they're here. They're responding rationally to incentives. But it's not good news for the rest of us.
I married a daughter of immigrants and we have three beautiful children so it was good news for me.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
Fair enough, I appreciate you engaging at all with my verbiage.
To push you one stage further, though: do you think the problems with immigration are down to immigrants having an inherent tendency to create these problems or from lack of effort to provide adequate assimilation?
People have been fighting over land, resources and money since the dawn of time yet, in the last 25-50 years, western governments have deliberately created the conditions for land, resources and wages to be fought over in their own countries by encouraging never seen before levels of immigration from poor countries, and are now surprised that it has created huge tension.
So the poor are supposed to put up with sharing resources, lower wages, and less job security, while living cheek to jowl with the new competition and not complain else be called racist, while the rich get a massive increase in potential labour, and get richer by watching the warring factions undercut each other for work.
Pretty much 100% agree. But just as you are rightly arguing that isn't poor people's fault, nor is it immigrants' fault.
Well, no, it isn't immigrants 'fault'. I can see why they're here. They're responding rationally to incentives. But it's not good news for the rest of us.
I'd like it noted in the PB Almanac that I was the first PBer to start hating Starmer, and also the first to point out that he was very hate-able and I was not alone in the hating
Admittedly, this achievement is somewhat muted by the fact I also voted for him, literally, him, in my constituency, but still
Now everyone hates Starmer and I feel like the cool kid who found a great new band and then watches as everyone else likes them later, and he doesn't feel cool any more. Probably coz he wasn't
Casino and isam were way ahead of you. Bigjohnowls too.
I'd like it noted in the PB Almanac that I was the first PBer to start hating Starmer, and also the first to point out that he was very hate-able and I was not alone in the hating
Admittedly, this achievement is somewhat muted by the fact I also voted for him, literally, him, in my constituency, but still
Now everyone hates Starmer and I feel like the cool kid who found a great new band and then watches as everyone else likes them later, and he doesn't feel cool any more. Probably coz he wasn't
Lol, I met him before he became leader and was like, nah. He didn't get my vote for Labour leader. And yet you literally voted for him! I don't hate him, though. Life is too short for hating anyone.
Starmer’s problem is that he creates a reaction of 1) Meh 2) Hate
He doesn’t seem to have partisans.
His policies upset large numbers. The U-turns even more.
I'd like it noted in the PB Almanac that I was the first PBer to start hating Starmer, and also the first to point out that he was very hate-able and I was not alone in the hating
Admittedly, this achievement is somewhat muted by the fact I also voted for him, literally, him, in my constituency, but still
Now everyone hates Starmer and I feel like the cool kid who found a great new band and then watches as everyone else likes them later, and he doesn't feel cool any more. Probably coz he wasn't
Casino and isam were way ahead of you. Bigjohnowls too.
There never were any 'SKS fans'. No-one endorsed him with any kind of enthusiasm. He was always seen as wooden, uncharismatic and dull. The hope was that he would prove competent, a hope that has now been dashed.
Signal further help in energy costs . Much closer ties with the EU .
He should accept total responsibility for the election results , accept the government has made silly mistakes.
Finally he should lay into Farage . Highlight the fact that he made a mistake in accepting some freebies when he first came into office but this pails into insignificance by the 5 million donation Farage was given , highlight that Reforms policy on crypto is clearly a return for the donation so in effect accuse Farage of bribery but not explicitly.
Cause an absolute media storm !
Yes I know some in here think the last bit is crazy but Starmer needs to do something unconventional and just let rip .
Starmer's Government supports a fast track Net Zero policy that:
1. Subsidises the producers of 'Green energy' to the tune of billions of pounds from electricity bill payers. 2. Drives energy prices and bills up further with carbon levies. 3. Bans oil exploration so that the proceeds of high oil prices are reaped by Russia, Saudi Arabia, the US and Norway, not the UK. 4. Levies windfall taxes on the energy companies that further undermine the provision of cheap energy. 5. Allows the courts and quangos effectively to criminalise new energy creation, like a coking coal mine in Cumbria and an oil well in Surrey, in the latter case by making the well responsible for ALL the emissions that would be caused by its output, when oil is fungible, so not having the Surrey oil well will not result in a reduced level of emissions. 6. Banning fracking for utterly spurious reasons.
And after all this, you think the answer is to:
7. Come up with an energy bill subsidy scheme, where the taxpayer pays more tax so that 'the vulnerable' (usually those in receipt of benefits) are shielded from the results of 1-6.
Celtic v Rahgers 3-1. Looks like we might be on for a last match of the season spine tingler!
COYBIG. I've seen and enjoyed a lot of Celtic titles over the years but this one would be special given the Nancy chaos at the start of the season.
Obviously it's none of my business and football is stupid, but surely, surely anyone who isn't actively a Celtic fan is supporting Hearts? Hearts winning would be the first interesting thing to happen in Scottish football in forty years.
Well, think we can probably add Rangers fans to the pro-Hearts list now.
Eric Kripke reacts to evangelical leaders praising a gold statue of Trump in the same week as people praised to a gold statue of Homelander in ‘THE BOYS’.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
Fair enough, I appreciate you engaging at all with my verbiage.
To push you one stage further, though: do you think the problems with immigration are down to immigrants having an inherent tendency to create these problems or from lack of effort to provide adequate assimilation?
People have been fighting over land, resources and money since the dawn of time yet, in the last 25-50 years, western governments have deliberately created the conditions for land, resources and wages to be fought over in their own countries by encouraging never seen before levels of immigration from poor countries, and are now surprised that it has created huge tension.
So the poor are supposed to put up with sharing resources, lower wages, and less job security, while living cheek to jowl with the new competition and not complain else be called racist, while the rich get a massive increase in potential labour, and get richer by watching the warring factions undercut each other for work.
Pretty much 100% agree. But just as you are rightly arguing that isn't poor people's fault, nor is it immigrants' fault.
Well, no, it isn't immigrants 'fault'. I can see why they're here. They're responding rationally to incentives. But it's not good news for the rest of us.
Why not?
Well - and, note, this is a long and disjointed conversation and I'm talking here specifically about boat people and other associated low-skilled immigrants from MENA, not high skilled Canadians /Hong Kongers/ Indians, and this detail may habe been lost along the way, though of course there is a massive spectrum from 'immigrant we want' to 'immigrant we don't want' - the costs of them in terms of benefits which have to be paid, etc, amd in driving down wages at the bottom end - outweigh the benefits to the UK population of them being here.
I'd like it noted in the PB Almanac that I was the first PBer to start hating Starmer, and also the first to point out that he was very hate-able and I was not alone in the hating
Admittedly, this achievement is somewhat muted by the fact I also voted for him, literally, him, in my constituency, but still
Now everyone hates Starmer and I feel like the cool kid who found a great new band and then watches as everyone else likes them later, and he doesn't feel cool any more. Probably coz he wasn't
Lol, I met him before he became leader and was like, nah. He didn't get my vote for Labour leader. And yet you literally voted for him! I don't hate him, though. Life is too short for hating anyone.
Starmer’s problem is that he creates a reaction of 1) Meh 2) Hate
He doesn’t seem to have partisans.
His policies upset large numbers. The U-turns even more.
Indeed. The hate is weird, the meh or indeed the intense frustration entirely understandable. It's time for Wes.
I'd like it noted in the PB Almanac that I was the first PBer to start hating Starmer, and also the first to point out that he was very hate-able and I was not alone in the hating
Admittedly, this achievement is somewhat muted by the fact I also voted for him, literally, him, in my constituency, but still
Now everyone hates Starmer and I feel like the cool kid who found a great new band and then watches as everyone else likes them later, and he doesn't feel cool any more. Probably coz he wasn't
Casino and isam were way ahead of you. Bigjohnowls too.
There never were any 'SKS fans'. No-one endorsed him with any kind of enthusiasm. He was always seen as wooden, uncharismatic and dull. The hope was that he would prove competent, a hope that has now been dashed.
I remain an optimist. The world is due a boom due to pent up demand, and we are sufficiently well integrated with the other western economies to do well from it. A few 3% growth years and things will look a lot different (including an end to endless EU debates).
We all just need to hope Farage isn’t the lucky recipient of said boom.
If Farage achieves:
1. Stopping the boats and sending a lot of costly benefits recipients on their way 2. Cheap energy following a very poorly attended memorial service for Net Zero 3. Sensible deregulation 4. Taxes on a downward trajectory, especially taxes on doing business.
Then he will get a boom, and luck will have had nothing to do with it.
I'd like it noted in the PB Almanac that I was the first PBer to start hating Starmer, and also the first to point out that he was very hate-able and I was not alone in the hating
Admittedly, this achievement is somewhat muted by the fact I also voted for him, literally, him, in my constituency, but still
Now everyone hates Starmer and I feel like the cool kid who found a great new band and then watches as everyone else likes them later, and he doesn't feel cool any more. Probably coz he wasn't
Casino and isam were way ahead of you. Bigjohnowls too.
There never were any 'SKS fans'. No-one endorsed him with any kind of enthusiasm. He was always seen as wooden, uncharismatic and dull. The hope was that he would prove competent, a hope that has now been dashed.
What if Burnham finds a seat then stands but in the meantime Labour find a new leader .
Let’s say he wins the by-election won’t the whole saga then continue as he enters parliament and a section of Labour MPs think oh look what we could have had .
He’s Portillo circa 2001. His only achievement is undermining the leadership.
What can’t Labour see that Starmer is still its best chance of a 2029 win, if they back him, deliver some stuff, and look united?
Because he is genuinely HATED
How many times do PBers have to be told this. Yes, it's probably not rational. Yes, it's an unpleasant emotion. Yes, it's tough for poor Skyr with his trillion pound pension
But, nonetheless, he is hated, in a way we've only ever seen before with Thatcher, but - unlike Starmer - Thatcher was a also a titanic figure who was revered by millions on her own side. Starmer hasn't got any of that, he's just hated. Voters say it, polls show it, I feel it. I hate him in a way I cannot always explain
Labour MPs constantly mentioned this during the campaign, on the doorstep, how Starmer was a MASSIVE problem. Ergo, he has to go, or Labour will never get a hearing
You might hate him but be careful what you wish for. Things aren't likely to improve with his departure, in fact they could get a good deal worse.
I know, which is why I admit the feeling is not entirely rational. If I was being coldly logical, I would probably want the useless Starmer to stay on, as he is such a brilliant recruiting sergeant for Reform, and I loathe Labour and want them to die. Starmer is the poison that could easily kill them
But I am being honest. He does invoke this fierce contempt, which might on a bad day be called hatred. The treachery, the greed, the narcissism, the lying, the cowardice, the spitefulness, the egotism, the way he dumps anyone as a way of avoiding blame. He is genuinely loathsome, and his voice makes me puke, I can't bear to hear it
If it was just me with these crazy weird feelz it wouldn't be an issue. But obvs it is not. Indeed as I mentioned a few days ago I had drinks with a very centre Dad liberal lefty friend who is solidly Labour. Two years ago he supported Starmer. A year ago he expressed weary disappointment but a willingness to perservere with Skyr. Last week I saw hatred,. His eyes narrowed, he snarled: "I want him gone. Not tomorrow. Today"
True story. The fascinating thing is that his reasons for hating Starmer are totally different to mine. But he hates him too
My sense is the left can't deal with the reality of the situation. The level of public debt and borrowing, the problems with multiculturalism, economic challenges relating to jobs, productivity, housing and security. They are struggling for answers so blaming Starmer is the easiest thing to do.
The foundation myth for this Labour government is that there was nothing wrong with the UK economy before 2010, that Gordon Brown had 'saved the world', that everything bad since then was the fault of 'Tory austerity' and 'Tory incompetence'.
I remain an optimist. The world is due a boom due to pent up demand, and we are sufficiently well integrated with the other western economies to do well from it. A few 3% growth years and things will look a lot different (including an end to endless EU debates).
We all just need to hope Farage isn’t the lucky recipient of said boom.
If Farage achieves:
1. Stopping the boats and sending a lot of costly benefits recipients on their way 2. Cheap energy following a very poorly attended memorial service for Net Zero 3. Sensible deregulation 4. Taxes on a downward trajectory, especially taxes on doing business.
Then he will get a boom, and luck will have had nothing to do with it.
All of which will need proper preparation beforehand and hard work (plus discipline) during to achieve.
I just don't see any evidence that Farage and his gang are willing to do either.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
You’re right, I’m not a Reform supporter but I don’t hate them or the communities that support them.
On terms of migration I don’t like their recently announced policy on asylum seekers. I do think people with no right to remain should be removed and we don’t do that anywhere near enough. Their policy is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
I am in a part of Durham that did not elect a Reform councillor although the one I voted for defected.
I get tired of the argument this country/city was built on immigrants thst is perpetuated. I even argued that with the moron @JosiasJessop who assumed it was racist to object to that argument.
It totally devalues the contribution of the indigenous people. It was a team effort.
We have had mass inward migration of unskilled workers which harms, not helps, job prospects at the bottom of the chain.
However it is not just migration. The issue is job opportunities, deprived communities, left behind communities and Reform talks to these communities. Doesn’t say these problems are down to immigrants alone but down to the Uniparty approach that has neglected these communities.
Why should communities like Hartlepool and Bishop Auckland lose their young people to other parts of the country because there are no opportunities there.
I’m not convinced to go Reform but Labour have lost my vote.
I'd say maxh's perfectly valid question is very much from a contributor to the system (a category I am also in): "why should I care which humans get state largesse?" If you are in the category of a recipient of state largesse - i.e. the bottom end of the WWC - and suddenly there is less to go round because a new category of recipient has slotted itself in above you - you feel rather different.
I'd also add that there was a characteristically furious post from an occasional poster yesterday about the low levels of educational attainment of the average Reform voter - to which I'd say, well, of course, because people in the top brackets of educational attainment don't find themselves living next door to HMOs of immigrants in Ashton under Lyne.
I'd also add that the 'nation of immigrants argument' is true but facile. It wasn't great news for the British population when the Romans or the Anglo Saxons arrived. It wasn't great news for the Anglo Saxons when the Vikings or the Normans arrived. Almost every wave of immigration has resulted in the existing population - particularly those at th bottom end of the scale - becoming materially poorer.
I agree with much of that, except that we are/have been both recipients of the state's largesse also. There is a subtext of moral superiority in the 'I'm a contributor' argument. I'm only a contributor because I grew up comfortable, took out huge resources from the public purse by being educated, often 1-to-1, in a top tier HE institution and have since been on a self-reinforcing cycle of opportunity.
There are of course some on the opposite end of the scale who are feckless. But far, far more are just powerless.
In my view those of us in a comfortable position should have a driving, incessant question: how can we restructure society so that the cycle of opportunity I have experienced is more widespread (globally, not just nationally)?
Which is why I'm interested in the justification for Reform amongst those on here.
I don't mean at all to be morally superior with the "I'm a contributor", quite the reverse: my point is that the luxury of indifference to who gets state largesse is one reserved for those of us lucky enough to be in this position.
And in response to your penultimate paragraph: we are a small proportion of the world's economy and can't possibly solve all the world's problems. But we can solve our own, and we do so by limiting the number of the world's poor we take responsibility for - i.e. to just our own poor.
Sorry, I misread the subtext of you comment! Entirely on me.
If Wes Streeting has what it takes to be PM then he’ll get it done this week. He’ll never have a better opportunity than now.
If Burnham is not back as an MP then next year will be even better for Streeting as the results will likely be even worse for Labour as London has no elections and most seats up are in the English towns and shires
Next year those Metropolitan areas that were all out this year will be back with the 3rd place winners defending their seats.
So an opportunity for Labour to claw some seats back to offset further losses in the boroughs that were only contesting a third this year.
I remain an optimist. The world is due a boom due to pent up demand, and we are sufficiently well integrated with the other western economies to do well from it. A few 3% growth years and things will look a lot different (including an end to endless EU debates).
We all just need to hope Farage isn’t the lucky recipient of said boom.
If Farage achieves:
1. Stopping the boats and sending a lot of costly benefits recipients on their way 2. Cheap energy following a very poorly attended memorial service for Net Zero 3. Sensible deregulation 4. Taxes on a downward trajectory, especially taxes on doing business.
Then he will get a boom, and luck will have had nothing to do with it.
All of which will need proper preparation beforehand and hard work (plus discipline) during to achieve.
I just don't see any evidence that Farage and his gang are willing to do either.
Danny Kruger and James Orr are both serious people. They intend to be prepared to do the above, and I think they're already better prepared than Starmer's lot were.
maxh - if people have been indoctrinated from birth to believe that ancient texts are the literal word of God and that such texts are not simply there to help you have a personal interior relationship with God but a practical guide to how you live your life, including politics, then such people are very unlikely to assimilate into life in the UK. Why is this so hard to understand?
I can think of more than one group who have been indoctrinated from birth to believe that ancient texts are the literal word of God and that such texts are not simply there to help you have a personal interior relationship with God but a practical guide to how you live your life, including politics. And that's not just the Weefrees.
I'd say two groups.
Muslims who follow the literal word of their religion and being committed to it, which most do not. Large numbers of Muslims are like large numbers of Roman Catholics and large numbers of Church of England people - in practice being cultural rather than confessional / committed. Here the physical text of the Koran is treated as the literal, physical Word of God. A devout Shia Muslim friend gave me an interlinear Arabic / English Koran back in the 1980s, complete with written instructions on how I should treat it with respect (eg do not hold below waste level, say this blessing before you read it etc).
There are plenty of organised Muslim communities who take different approaches.
That is analogous to Christians viewing the person and character of Christ as the model for faith and conduct, or the veneration that devout Roman Catholics have for the communion elements, which to an extent is inherited by Anglicans despite a more protestant theology.
Plus some streams of Evangelicals go in for dogmas about the Bible being "infallible" and "inerrant", leading into a literalism which is evident in eg the claims of some of Trump's evangelical supporters, and ironically leads to attempts to treat the Bible as being like the Koran. To me this is trying to treat the Bible as a particular type of text - in effect imposing reductionist thought patters on it, so actually doing violence to Christian doctrine.
This imo is where Young Earth Creationists end up barking up their tree, because they want Genesis to be a history and a science book, which it is not. Ironically this is also imo where the likes of Dawkins go wrong, because they continually insist on opposing particular sub-versions of Christianity most Christians do not embrace.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I wrote a longer post, and my browser binned it, so here is a TLDR.
In essence, my big problem with immigration is population density. We can't afford to build the necessary infrastructure (effectively a huge 1 off cost to make the UK liveable with it's much enlarge population), and anyway I don't want to concrete over more of what is already one of the more densely populated countries on the planet to we can ram more and more people into it.
Whilst I think all humans are of equal worth, I don't think it's practical to be equally concerned about all of them, everywhere on the globe if you are a national government. National governments should govern for the best interests those within that nation, otherwise they will be taken advantage of by others who are less scruplous.
What if Burnham finds a seat then stands but in the meantime Labour find a new leader .
Let’s say he wins the by-election won’t the whole saga then continue as he enters parliament and a section of Labour MPs think oh look what we could have had .
He’s Portillo circa 2001. His only achievement is undermining the leadership.
What can’t Labour see that Starmer is still its best chance of a 2029 win, if they back him, deliver some stuff, and look united?
Because he is genuinely HATED
How many times do PBers have to be told this. Yes, it's probably not rational. Yes, it's an unpleasant emotion. Yes, it's tough for poor Skyr with his trillion pound pension
But, nonetheless, he is hated, in a way we've only ever seen before with Thatcher, but - unlike Starmer - Thatcher was a also a titanic figure who was revered by millions on her own side. Starmer hasn't got any of that, he's just hated. Voters say it, polls show it, I feel it. I hate him in a way I cannot always explain
Labour MPs constantly mentioned this during the campaign, on the doorstep, how Starmer was a MASSIVE problem. Ergo, he has to go, or Labour will never get a hearing
You might hate him but be careful what you wish for. Things aren't likely to improve with his departure, in fact they could get a good deal worse.
I know, which is why I admit the feeling is not entirely rational. If I was being coldly logical, I would probably want the useless Starmer to stay on, as he is such a brilliant recruiting sergeant for Reform, and I loathe Labour and want them to die. Starmer is the poison that could easily kill them
But I am being honest. He does invoke this fierce contempt, which might on a bad day be called hatred. The treachery, the greed, the narcissism, the lying, the cowardice, the spitefulness, the egotism, the way he dumps anyone as a way of avoiding blame. He is genuinely loathsome, and his voice makes me puke, I can't bear to hear it
If it was just me with these crazy weird feelz it wouldn't be an issue. But obvs it is not. Indeed as I mentioned a few days ago I had drinks with a very centre Dad liberal lefty friend who is solidly Labour. Two years ago he supported Starmer. A year ago he expressed weary disappointment but a willingness to perservere with Skyr. Last week I saw hatred,. His eyes narrowed, he snarled: "I want him gone. Not tomorrow. Today"
True story. The fascinating thing is that his reasons for hating Starmer are totally different to mine. But he hates him too
My sense is the left can't deal with the reality of the situation. The level of public debt and borrowing, the problems with multiculturalism, economic challenges relating to jobs, productivity, housing and security. They are struggling for answers so blaming Starmer is the easiest thing to do.
The foundation myth for this Labour government is that there was nothing wrong with the UK economy before 2010, that Gordon Brown had 'saved the world', that everything bad since then was the fault of 'Tory austerity' and 'Tory incompetence'.
I suspect many of us would be comfortable to turn the clock back to 2010. Even better 2007.
Austerity has proven to be a failed experiment encapsulated in the Alexei Sayle comment that there was a narrative that considered "the World banking crisis was caused by too many libraries in Wolverhampton".
One take away from austerity was the social damage done and on costs of binning Surestart. That was simply the most foolhardy money saving exercise engaged by mankind.
If Wes Streeting has what it takes to be PM then he’ll get it done this week. He’ll never have a better opportunity than now.
If you had one shot or one opportunity. To seize everything you ever wanted in one moment. Would you capture it or just let it slip? (Yo)
Give me one moment in time When I'm more than I thought I could be When all of my dreams are a heartbeat away And the answers are all up to me Give me one moment in time When I'm racing with destiny Then in that one moment of time I will feel I will feel eternity
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
Fair enough, I appreciate you engaging at all with my verbiage.
To push you one stage further, though: do you think the problems with immigration are down to immigrants having an inherent tendency to create these problems or from lack of effort to provide adequate assimilation?
I don’t really recognise the premise of your question. It’s too confused and/or slippery
I’ll put it my own way. The problem is not humans it’s more like CULTURES. Some cultures are much more easy to assimilate than others. Japanese and Polish and Korean and American and Danish immigrants bring almost no problems at all, and probably lots of benefits
Other cultures are more problematic. The obvious biggest problem is fundamentalist Islam (which must be separated from more western secular Islam - immigrants from the UAE aren’t a problem, either)
It is pretty obvious that conservative Islam does not assimilate. It is deeply resistant. It is also aggressive and sectarian and brings multiple other problems. We saw all this in the election last week with the dubious “Gaza independents” and the actual convicted terrorist who nearly won a seat
While I can understand your reluctance to say it, to me that just sounds like you think (some) immigrants themselves are the problem. I don't necessarily disagree. I have some sympathy with the cultural point, but I think this would better be addressed by a confident and assertive assimilation programme which immigrants must sign up to as a condition of being here.
I remain an optimist. The world is due a boom due to pent up demand, and we are sufficiently well integrated with the other western economies to do well from it. A few 3% growth years and things will look a lot different (including an end to endless EU debates).
We all just need to hope Farage isn’t the lucky recipient of said boom.
If Farage achieves:
1. Stopping the boats and sending a lot of costly benefits recipients on their way 2. Cheap energy following a very poorly attended memorial service for Net Zero 3. Sensible deregulation 4. Taxes on a downward trajectory, especially taxes on doing business.
Then he will get a boom, and luck will have had nothing to do with it.
All of which will need proper preparation beforehand and hard work (plus discipline) during to achieve.
I just don't see any evidence that Farage and his gang are willing to do either.
Danny Kruger and James Orr are both serious people. They intend to be prepared to do the above, and I think they're already better prepared than Starmer's lot were.
That's the lowest of low bars.
We also had Boris and Truss fcking up because they weren't prepared to do the preparation, the hard work or the discipline.
And its something which has to be done across the party generally and completly across the leadership.
Farage needs to look back on how on top of the issues Thatcher was before she became PM and do the same.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
Fair enough, I appreciate you engaging at all with my verbiage.
To push you one stage further, though: do you think the problems with immigration are down to immigrants having an inherent tendency to create these problems or from lack of effort to provide adequate assimilation?
I don’t really recognise the premise of your question. It’s too confused and/or slippery
I’ll put it my own way. The problem is not humans it’s more like CULTURES. Some cultures are much more easy to assimilate than others. Japanese and Polish and Korean and American and Danish immigrants bring almost no problems at all, and probably lots of benefits
Other cultures are more problematic. The obvious biggest problem is fundamentalist Islam (which must be separated from more western secular Islam - immigrants from the UAE aren’t a problem, either)
It is pretty obvious that conservative Islam does not assimilate. It is deeply resistant. It is also aggressive and sectarian and brings multiple other problems. We saw all this in the election last week with the dubious “Gaza independents” and the actual convicted terrorist who nearly won a seat
While I can understand your reluctance to say it, to me that just sounds like you think (some) immigrants themselves are the problem. I don't necessarily disagree. I have some sympathy with the cultural point, but I think this would better be addressed by a confident and assertive assimilation programme which immigrants must sign up to as a condition of being here.
I'd like it noted in the PB Almanac that I was the first PBer to start hating Starmer, and also the first to point out that he was very hate-able and I was not alone in the hating
Admittedly, this achievement is somewhat muted by the fact I also voted for him, literally, him, in my constituency, but still
Now everyone hates Starmer and I feel like the cool kid who found a great new band and then watches as everyone else likes them later, and he doesn't feel cool any more. Probably coz he wasn't
Casino and isam were way ahead of you. Bigjohnowls too.
Eric Kripke reacts to evangelical leaders praising a gold statue of Trump in the same week as people praised to a gold statue of Homelander in ‘THE BOYS’.
What on earth happened to make work pay? Its a complete fantasy and its making everyone who tried to play by the rules and pay their share feel like a mug. No wonder support for the traditional mainstream parties is collapsing. No one likes to feel they've been mugged.
The big reality of why Starmer is so loathed is because he fails the only real test question that matters. Would you have a pint with Starmer. Result NO .90pc
If Wes Streeting has what it takes to be PM then he’ll get it done this week. He’ll never have a better opportunity than now.
If you had one shot or one opportunity. To seize everything you ever wanted in one moment. Would you capture it or just let it slip? (Yo)
Give me one moment in time When I'm more than I thought I could be When all of my dreams are a heartbeat away And the answers are all up to me Give me one moment in time When I'm racing with destiny Then in that one moment of time I will feel I will feel eternity
I love the line about racing with Destiny..... she was always my favoutite Angel in Captain Scarlet.
What on earth happened to make work pay? Its a complete fantasy and its making everyone who tried to play by the rules and pay their share feel like a mug. No wonder support for the traditional mainstream parties is collapsing. No one likes to feel they've been mugged.
It’s the cliff edges for moving from benefits to work.
The honest are terrified at being pauperised by having benefits docked for earning 50p too much or something.
I’ve sat across from people in tears, from the worry that they have worked *too many* hours.
I'd like it noted in the PB Almanac that I was the first PBer to start hating Starmer, and also the first to point out that he was very hate-able and I was not alone in the hating
Admittedly, this achievement is somewhat muted by the fact I also voted for him, literally, him, in my constituency, but still
Now everyone hates Starmer and I feel like the cool kid who found a great new band and then watches as everyone else likes them later, and he doesn't feel cool any more. Probably coz he wasn't
Casino and isam were way ahead of you. Bigjohnowls too.
There never were any 'SKS fans'. No-one endorsed him with any kind of enthusiasm. He was always seen as wooden, uncharismatic and dull. The hope was that he would prove competent, a hope that has now been dashed.
Yes, pretty much. That's where I've been disappointed. The hate is an odd psychological phenomenon and you'd need people on the couch and allowing their subconscious to babble to get to the bottom of it. But yes, I'm disappointed and, I freely admit, surprised too. I thought he'd be a focused, low key, competent PM who by now would have become part of the furniture, kind of like a comfy chair. Something you wouldn't dash out to buy but which you wouldn't want to be without. This has not transpired.
First? I'm on the other brother at 1000, can we get a groundswell behind him? Lammy out of the running?
Was Lammy ever in the running? Ditto Cooper. Reeves not being in the running is more understandable. Meanwhile all the noise is coming from people whose ego and ambition far outrun their ability.
As a lapsed Conservative, it makes me quite nostalgic for the old days.
i tipped Lammy at 100/1, he's now 59/1.
I think he was one of the if Sir Keir falls under a bus candidates.
One thing in his favour I was told after the bet is that nobody hates him, which isn't true of all the candidates.
The big reality of why Starmer is so loathed is because he fails the only real test question that matters. Would you have a pint with Starmer. Result NO .90pc
I wouldn't want a pint with Sunak, Truss, Johnson,May, Cameron, Brown or Blair either.
I wouldn't have a pint with Milliband, Burnham, Streeting or Reeves. Rayner might be a laugh.
What on earth happened to make work pay? Its a complete fantasy and its making everyone who tried to play by the rules and pay their share feel like a mug. No wonder support for the traditional mainstream parties is collapsing. No one likes to feel they've been mugged.
It’s the cliff edges for moving from benefits to work.
The honest are terrified at being pauperised by having benefits docked for earning 50p too much or something.
I’ve sat across from people in tears, from the worry that they have worked *too many* hours.
Yes, I have come across that too. People who are being forced to work less than they want to because the disincentives to work are more than 100%. Friends of my daughter with young children and our horrific child care costs have it even worse.
This has been seriously aggravated by the recent increases in benefits which no doubt made many Labour MPs feel better about themselves even if it made Reeves even more lugubrious. These people simply do not live anywhere near the world of the people that they think they are trying to help. They don't understand. As Pulp so memorably put it many years ago now:
Sing along with the common people Sing along and it might just get you through Laugh along with the common people Laugh along even though they're really laughing at you And the stupid things that you do Because you think that poor is cool
I'd like it noted in the PB Almanac that I was the first PBer to start hating Starmer, and also the first to point out that he was very hate-able and I was not alone in the hating
Admittedly, this achievement is somewhat muted by the fact I also voted for him, literally, him, in my constituency, but still
Now everyone hates Starmer and I feel like the cool kid who found a great new band and then watches as everyone else likes them later, and he doesn't feel cool any more. Probably coz he wasn't
Casino and isam were way ahead of you. Bigjohnowls too.
There never were any 'SKS fans'. No-one endorsed him with any kind of enthusiasm. He was always seen as wooden, uncharismatic and dull. The hope was that he would prove competent, a hope that has now been dashed.
Yes, pretty much. That's where I've been disappointed. The hate is an odd psychological phenomenon and you'd need people on the couch and allowing their subconscious to babble to get to the bottom of it. But yes, I'm disappointed and, I freely admit, surprised too. I thought he'd be a focused, low key, competent PM who by now would have become part of the furniture, kind of like a comfy chair. Something you wouldn't dash out to buy but which you wouldn't want to be without. This has not transpired.
The facts are the facts . By doubling the salary requirements from 30,000 to 60,000 this means hundreds of thousands of people will lose their ILR and will be deported , this includes their children who will have to leave behind all their friends and could end up being deported to a country where they don’t even speak the language .
The flippant attitude some show in here at the human cost of this policy is really depressing . I have no problem with strict policies on overstayers and those who commit crimes . If you break your side of the bargain then fine deport these people.
I’m not some bleeding heart liberal who wants open borders and understand why people want much lower immigration.
What is totally unacceptable IMO is retrospective changes made to laws which mean many people who did everything asked of them will be deported.
And where does this end ? All we heard before from UKIP , then the Brexit Party and now Reform was the issue of net migration and now migrant boats . Now that net migration is falling dramatically in an effort to keep up their electoral chances Reform have decided to forment more anger and division by moving onto people who are legally here.
And when they’re done with that who is next .
Do people want to see their neighbours , friends at work deported , their children’s friends deported . Because this is what the Reform policy will do.
If you’re okay with this then really there’s nothing much else to say .
What on earth happened to make work pay? Its a complete fantasy and its making everyone who tried to play by the rules and pay their share feel like a mug. No wonder support for the traditional mainstream parties is collapsing. No one likes to feel they've been mugged.
It’s the cliff edges for moving from benefits to work.
The honest are terrified at being pauperised by having benefits docked for earning 50p too much or something.
I’ve sat across from people in tears, from the worry that they have worked *too many* hours.
Far to generous benefits has caused this debacle, much easier to lie in your scratcher/go down pub and self medicate any one of a million new disabilty lottery winners.
What on earth happened to make work pay? Its a complete fantasy and its making everyone who tried to play by the rules and pay their share feel like a mug. No wonder support for the traditional mainstream parties is collapsing. No one likes to feel they've been mugged.
It’s the cliff edges for moving from benefits to work.
The honest are terrified at being pauperised by having benefits docked for earning 50p too much or something.
I’ve sat across from people in tears, from the worry that they have worked *too many* hours.
Yes, I have come across that too. People who are being forced to work less than they want to because the disincentives to work are more than 100%. Friends of my daughter with young children and our horrific child care costs have it even worse.
This has been seriously aggravated by the recent increases in benefits which no doubt made many Labour MPs feel better about themselves even if it made Reeves even more lugubrious. These people simply do not live anywhere near the world of the people that they think they are trying to help. They don't understand. As Pulp so memorably put it many years ago now:
Sing along with the common people Sing along and it might just get you through Laugh along with the common people Laugh along even though they're really laughing at you And the stupid things that you do Because you think that poor is cool
"UC claimants get Class 3 NI credits"
What is this bilge?
No they don't.
Class 3 is voluntary payments by people who have gaps in their NI record and involves coughing up £ to HMRC.
Maybe they mean the NI class 1 credits one gets if on UC?
I'd like it noted in the PB Almanac that I was the first PBer to start hating Starmer, and also the first to point out that he was very hate-able and I was not alone in the hating
Admittedly, this achievement is somewhat muted by the fact I also voted for him, literally, him, in my constituency, but still
Now everyone hates Starmer and I feel like the cool kid who found a great new band and then watches as everyone else likes them later, and he doesn't feel cool any more. Probably coz he wasn't
Casino and isam were way ahead of you. Bigjohnowls too.
There never were any 'SKS fans'. No-one endorsed him with any kind of enthusiasm. He was always seen as wooden, uncharismatic and dull. The hope was that he would prove competent, a hope that has now been dashed.
Yes, pretty much. That's where I've been disappointed. The hate is an odd psychological phenomenon and you'd need people on the couch and allowing their subconscious to babble to get to the bottom of it. But yes, I'm disappointed and, I freely admit, surprised too. I thought he'd be a focused, low key, competent PM who by now would have become part of the furniture, kind of like a comfy chair. Something you wouldn't dash out to buy but which you wouldn't want to be without. This has not transpired.
I can understand the disdain.
I absolutely despised Johnson.
Me too. And that was completely 100% rational and merited. What a shyster.
What on earth happened to make work pay? Its a complete fantasy and its making everyone who tried to play by the rules and pay their share feel like a mug. No wonder support for the traditional mainstream parties is collapsing. No one likes to feel they've been mugged.
It’s the cliff edges for moving from benefits to work.
The honest are terrified at being pauperised by having benefits docked for earning 50p too much or something.
I’ve sat across from people in tears, from the worry that they have worked *too many* hours.
That's part of it. Another part is the rentier culture; life isn't really too bad if you don't have to pay for your housing but it's pretty awful if as much cash as possible is being handed over to a landlord. But also this;
The "dirty secret" of the Scandi model is that everybody pays a lot more tax into the system, not just the rich. But people are more happy with their settlement because the entitlements they recieve work better. Its a more difficult starting point in the UK because lack of confidence the state will actually use the extra money wisely and their won't be huge wastage.
We've decided, election after election, that we don't want to pay higher taxes. It's the will of the people, it's a valid thing to say, but it's why we've ended up where we are. If you want a lean welfare state, and you don't want to leave anyone properly destitute, you end up with horrible cliff edges. You end up with councils not having the money to do anything to make life nice for the majority, because every penny goes into making it vagely bearable for the neediest.
We sort of know that we don't like this- hence every government in the last couple of decades has been unpopuar. But we'd rather fantasise about fantasy tax rises or fantasy spending cuts that won't hurt us. Do it to Julia instead. The trouble with fantasies is... they're not real.
Comments
Admittedly, this achievement is somewhat muted by the fact I also voted for him, literally, him, in my constituency, but still
Now everyone hates Starmer and I feel like the cool kid who found a great new band and then watches as everyone else likes them later, and he doesn't feel cool any more. Probably coz he wasn't
On your civic nationalism, I can see it is an excellent defence of that optimistic version of Reform. I hope that is what comes to pass.
*whose greatest achievement was electoral advice to Theresa May
Its all just babblings in the echo chamber.
That's Labour's real failure.
They actually had a couple of ideas, and failed to do anything with them.
As for economic policies, there were none from my friend. So I suspect you are right. On the left, Starmer is getting the blame for the complete and final failure of the whole social democratic, woke, multiculti, mass migration, borrow and spend model
That's extremely hard to accept, so find a scapegoat. Skyr
We all just need to hope Farage isn’t the lucky recipient of said boom.
But he needs to go.
It’s why I (as a non-Starmer voter) feel sorry for him. I think he’s rubbish because he’s too wet and left wing, and his voters think he’s rubbish because he’s on the right of Enoch Powell.
The lately departed @isam had a march on you by about 4 years. There were others too.
I don't suppose anyone remembers Currygate.
And that's not just the Weefrees.
Thanks John!
In fact, because of the operational independence of the Bank of England and the constraints of the bond and foreign currency markets, much of the areas of governance identified are already partially outside direct democratic control. So while we would certainly lose some democratic accountability by joining the euro, we'd lose rather less than we do under EU regulation in other areas.
What is wrong with joining the Euro is the UK is an Optimal Currency Area, as defined by Mundell (1961), and the EU with the EU in it certainly is not. It has (and had when we were in the EU) insufficient labour and capital mobility, and stabilisers, in particular welfare spending, are entirely inadequately developed. The EU budget is about 1.1% of EU GDP, the UK's is about 40%. This finances completely different levels of responsiveness to asymmetric shocks.
What this means in practice is that deficit countries in the euro area will experience greatly increased instability: periods of boom as capital markets reduce risk premia, then much longer periods of recession in times of decreased risk tolerance. Most dramatically you can see this with Greece, which underwent a relatively short-lived boom in the 2000s, hit the buffers in 2007, and still hasn't recovered to its GDP in that year. As a deficit country, we would be a bigger Greece.
In addition, there is one final area of the Euro which makes for huge instability - the obsession that surplus countries, mainly Germany but also the Netherlands, France and Ireland, have for running those surpluses. This practically obliges other countries in the eurozone to be in deficit (unless the eurozone as a whole is permitted to run an unrealistically high surplus with the rest of the world), meaning that there will always be huge instability in the system somewhere.
So, overall, membership of the Euro would be an economic calamity, even more than a democratic one, as it has been for other deficit countries, and we should stay as far away from it as possible.
There's decades of evidence to prove otherwise anyway.
Let’s get Wes in. It’s time for CHANGE
I am all for some human sacrifice to appease the great God James Anderson, who would have delivered a victory had he been selected, following the last Ashes defeat.
Consider going after demand, not supply. My ideas of
1) criminalising the use of “layering” - using multiple levels of “gig economy” workers. This allows big corporations to deny connection to illegal employment - sub minimum wage, delivery drivers instructed to break the law etc.
2) a big reward and indefinite leave to remain (if required) for giving evidence leading to a conviction for illegal employment, sub minimum wage pay etc
3) visa sale would get an unlimited fine plus 3 years per count
All three would attack rich scumbags who are ripping off migrants. It would kill, dead, the 3rd world style employment we see around us.
(this may also apply to other parties)
Kevin Schofield
@KevinASchofield
A minister responds: “This sort of behaviour is why Josh is widely disliked and mistrusted by every part of the Labour Party. Which is some achievement from somebody who has been an MP for 20 months.”
https://x.com/KevinASchofield/status/2053400605117276374?s=20
Racism is not in itself a crime, but it often coincides with crimes, and crimes of all sorts should be swiftly dealt with.
And some people still believe the solution to that malaise is to integrate more with the one section of the planet not growing.
Whilst some would consider me mad, I think the Labour you refer to (definite not Woke, even if Wakened) could satisfy both of us.
I enjoyed the recent Hearts v Rangers match being described as El Staunchio (Hearts generally being considered a Prod team).
But they'll have difficulty losing 1500.
(Felt vs Straw, I believe. Imagine a time when a town could make its name by the quality of its straw hats.)
They started the split a point behind Hearts and 2 ahead of Celtic having lost only 2 games.
I don't hate him, though. Life is too short for hating anyone.
The people and countries who gain and lose from the demand, the paying and the supplying are not necessarily the same.
Bigjohnowls too.
He doesn’t seem to have partisans.
His policies upset large numbers. The U-turns even more.
1. Subsidises the producers of 'Green energy' to the tune of billions of pounds from electricity bill payers.
2. Drives energy prices and bills up further with carbon levies.
3. Bans oil exploration so that the proceeds of high oil prices are reaped by Russia, Saudi Arabia, the US and Norway, not the UK.
4. Levies windfall taxes on the energy companies that further undermine the provision of cheap energy.
5. Allows the courts and quangos effectively to criminalise new energy creation, like a coking coal mine in Cumbria and an oil well in Surrey, in the latter case by making the well responsible for ALL the emissions that would be caused by its output, when oil is fungible, so not having the Surrey oil well will not result in a reduced level of emissions.
6. Banning fracking for utterly spurious reasons.
And after all this, you think the answer is to:
7. Come up with an energy bill subsidy scheme, where the taxpayer pays more tax so that 'the vulnerable' (usually those in receipt of benefits) are shielded from the results of 1-6.
“Seriously, what the fuck?”
https://x.com/DiscussingFilm/status/2053160337097040270
1. Stopping the boats and sending a lot of costly benefits recipients on their way
2. Cheap energy following a very poorly attended memorial service for Net Zero
3. Sensible deregulation
4. Taxes on a downward trajectory, especially taxes on doing business.
Then he will get a boom, and luck will have had nothing to do with it.
I just don't see any evidence that Farage and his gang are willing to do either.
So an opportunity for Labour to claw some seats back to offset further losses in the boroughs that were only contesting a third this year.
Muslims who follow the literal word of their religion and being committed to it, which most do not. Large numbers of Muslims are like large numbers of Roman Catholics and large numbers of Church of England people - in practice being cultural rather than confessional / committed. Here the physical text of the Koran is treated as the literal, physical Word of God. A devout Shia Muslim friend gave me an interlinear Arabic / English Koran back in the 1980s, complete with written instructions on how I should treat it with respect (eg do not hold below waste level, say this blessing before you read it etc).
There are plenty of organised Muslim communities who take different approaches.
That is analogous to Christians viewing the person and character of Christ as the model for faith and conduct, or the veneration that devout Roman Catholics have for the communion elements, which to an extent is inherited by Anglicans despite a more protestant theology.
Plus some streams of Evangelicals go in for dogmas about the Bible being "infallible" and "inerrant", leading into a literalism which is evident in eg the claims of some of Trump's evangelical supporters, and ironically leads to attempts to treat the Bible as being like the Koran. To me this is trying to treat the Bible as a particular type of text - in effect imposing reductionist thought patters on it, so actually doing violence to Christian doctrine.
This imo is where Young Earth Creationists end up barking up their tree, because they want Genesis to be a history and a science book, which it is not. Ironically this is also imo where the likes of Dawkins go wrong, because they continually insist on opposing particular sub-versions of Christianity most Christians do not embrace.
I wrote a longer post, and my browser binned it, so here is a TLDR.
In essence, my big problem with immigration is population density. We can't afford to build the necessary infrastructure (effectively a huge 1 off cost to make the UK liveable with it's much enlarge population), and anyway I don't want to concrete over more of what is already one of the more densely populated countries on the planet to we can ram more and more people into it.
Whilst I think all humans are of equal worth, I don't think it's practical to be equally concerned about all of them, everywhere on the globe if you are a national government. National governments should govern for the best interests those within that nation, otherwise they will be taken advantage of by others who are less scruplous.
Austerity has proven to be a failed experiment encapsulated in the Alexei Sayle comment that there was a narrative that considered "the World banking crisis was caused by too many libraries in Wolverhampton".
One take away from austerity was the social damage done and on costs of binning Surestart. That was simply the most foolhardy money saving exercise engaged by mankind.
When I'm more than I thought I could be
When all of my dreams are a heartbeat away
And the answers are all up to me
Give me one moment in time
When I'm racing with destiny
Then in that one moment of time
I will feel
I will feel eternity
Their motto is “Ready” - the only thing they are “ready” to do is fold faster than Superman on laundry day
We also had Boris and Truss fcking up because they weren't prepared to do the preparation, the hard work or the discipline.
And its something which has to be done across the party generally and completly across the leadership.
Farage needs to look back on how on top of the issues Thatcher was before she became PM and do the same.
Would you have a pint with Starmer. Result
NO
.90pc
The honest are terrified at being pauperised by having benefits docked for earning 50p too much or something.
I’ve sat across from people in tears, from the worry that they have worked *too many* hours.
I wouldn't have a pint with Milliband, Burnham, Streeting or Reeves. Rayner might be a laugh.
This has been seriously aggravated by the recent increases in benefits which no doubt made many Labour MPs feel better about themselves even if it made Reeves even more lugubrious. These people simply do not live anywhere near the world of the people that they think they are trying to help. They don't understand. As Pulp so memorably put it many years ago now:
Sing along with the common people
Sing along and it might just get you through
Laugh along with the common people
Laugh along even though they're really laughing at you
And the stupid things that you do
Because you think that poor is cool
I absolutely despised Johnson.
The facts are the facts . By doubling the salary requirements from 30,000 to 60,000 this means hundreds of thousands of people will lose their ILR and will be deported , this includes their children who will have to leave behind all their friends and could end up being deported to a country where they don’t even speak the language .
The flippant attitude some show in here at the human cost of this policy is really depressing . I have no problem with strict policies on overstayers and those who commit crimes . If you break your side of the bargain then fine deport these people.
I’m not some bleeding heart liberal who wants open borders and understand why people want much lower immigration.
What is totally unacceptable IMO is retrospective changes made to laws which mean many people who did everything asked of them will be deported.
And where does this end ? All we heard before from UKIP , then the Brexit Party and now Reform was the issue of net migration and now migrant boats . Now that net migration is falling dramatically in an effort to keep up their electoral chances Reform have decided to forment more anger and division by moving onto people who are legally here.
And when they’re done with that who is next .
Do people want to see their neighbours , friends at work deported , their children’s friends deported . Because this is what the Reform policy will do.
If you’re okay with this then really there’s nothing much else to say .
"UC claimants get Class 3 NI credits"
What is this bilge?
No they don't.
Class 3 is voluntary payments by people who have gaps in their NI record and involves coughing up £ to HMRC.
Maybe they mean the NI class 1 credits one gets if on UC?
We sort of know that we don't like this- hence every government in the last couple of decades has been unpopuar. But we'd rather fantasise about fantasy tax rises or fantasy spending cuts that won't hurt us. Do it to Julia instead. The trouble with fantasies is... they're not real.