Westminster Politics

Trump didn't give a toss about a trade deal last time he was in. They only want right wing nutjobs in Government.
Trump didn’t give a toss about economic policy with the UK. Neither does Rees Mogg. Their mates and donors very much care about access to food and health markets.
 
The dad too, just knowing, unable to protect him.

Broken me tbh
The mum's comments today have set me off a bit though - saying it's the social worker's fault that her son is dead because they didn't force entry into the house on January 2nd. The mum hadn't been in contact with her ex to check in on her 2 year old son since before Christmas.
 
At this rate Labour might become the centre/centre-right party with another party becoming the established centre-left opposition.
Or the Overton window has shifted so far right that right wing Labour are the left wing party still?
 
At this rate Labour might become the centre/centre-right party with another party becoming the established centre-left opposition.
Will be interesting to see what happens to Labour polling with the under 50’s once it gets into government and does nothing.
Or the Overton window has shifted so far right that right wing Labour are the left wing party still?
Is there genuinely a difference in policy between the Labour right and the tories ?
 
Or the Overton window has shifted so far right that right wing Labour are the left wing party still?

A depressing thought but probably true right now.

It'll depend on if the link between age and moving right is broken as seems to be the case. If this generation are done with the Tories and there's less of an ongoing shift right, with the issues facing humanity a left wing party might be the more prevalent voice of opposition in GE 2029.

OR our AI robot overlords will have already put Starmers head on a pike. Hard to call.
 
The mum's comments today have set me off a bit though - saying it's the social worker's fault that her son is dead because they didn't force entry into the house on January 2nd. The mum hadn't been in contact with her ex to check in on her 2 year old son since before Christmas.
Yeah the mum is a state
 
Will be interesting to see what happens to Labour polling with the under 50’s once it gets into government and does nothing.

Is there genuinely a difference in policy between the Labour right and the tories ?
Zero. the difference is that Labour claim they will end cronyism - have to see if that’s true when they get into power. The fact so many Labour MPs have the same corporate donors and second jobs as Tories makes me very skeptical.
 
And all the money Thatcher got from the sales was spunked on tax cuts to bribe people into voting for her. It could have been invested in more social housing for a win-win situation but the ideological cow couldn't care less about where people might live in the future.
FtLs7bRX0AAnleG.jpg
 
Zero. the difference is that Labour claim they will end cronyism - have to see if that’s true when they get into power. The fact so many Labour MPs have the same corporate donors and second jobs as Tories makes me very skeptical.
The only way I can make sense of Labour current plans is they genuinely think they are morally better than the tories and this is all that is needed to somehow make the country better.
 
Come on man. Everyone here seems to be saying this.

Labour had shitloads of policies signed off at conference. Tracker from conference onwards (including summaries). They’ve just aligned them to 5 key missions. Latest Refresh

I can accept anyone reading it, and shooting it to pieces. Whether that’s because they don’t go far enough, are too centrist or whatever. For me, there’s a lot of good in there, some great, and the pursuit of the Missions and policies for a decade would leave this country back on its feet, looking forward.

But politically engaged people, trotting out the line ‘Labour only offer “we’re not the Tories” and don’t have any policies’… Nah.

They’re standing on a pile of fully costed intent, and suggesting otherwise is just enabling the Tories. There’s a reason that these policies aren’t promoted. The Press.

Out of that giant morass of bullet points and ambiguities what would you say are the top 5 headline policies that will define a Starmer government?

I managed to divine nine or ten contenders that seem to contain at least some concrete proposals, some of which might even have their own subclauses:
  • £28bn Green Prosperity Plan (implementation towards the end of the next parliament and highly dependent upon state of economy).
  • Minimum wage to be remodelled as a "genuine living wage" and updated to reflect a yet to be defined standard under the remit of the Low Pay Commission
  • Repeal the 2016 Trade Union Act and other 2022 anti-strike legislation, although this seems to be up in the air
  • Introduce a points based immigration system.
  • Introduce the 'Take Back Control Act', similar to the Conservatives, allowing local authorities to take more control over areas like industrial strategy and transport (bit short on detail).
  • Reduce the voting age to 16 (not sure if this is set in stone)
  • Renationalise the railways as and when contracts expire.
  • Free breakfast clubs and the overseeing of toothbrushing.
  • 13k more community police officers (or PCSO's); halving knife crime in 10 years.
  • 8.5k more mental health staff
There's an enormous amount of guff in the link you provided. Lots of meaningless platitudes like "break down the barriers to opportunity" and "unlock the potential of" or amorphous and materially lacking indications of future endeavours: We learn that Labour will "develop plans which will see", "develop policies to ensure", "set out a clear roadmap for" "deliver a long term plan that" and "introduce standards that will." It all sounds very exciting and yet despite its verbosity is very slight on fundamental detail.

My main takeaway is that that page is going out of its way to sound like it's a lot more than it actually is.


Edit: I confess I did try to read it all but my eyes started to involuntarily glaze over on many more than one occasions.
 
Last edited:
Out of that giant morass of bullet points and ambiguities what would you say are the top 5 headline policies that will define a Starmer government?

I managed to divine nine or ten contenders that seem to contain at least some concrete proposals, some of which might even have their own subclauses:
  • £28bn Green Prosperity Plan (implementation towards the end of the next parliament and highly dependent upon state of economy).
  • Minimum wage to be remodelled as a "genuine living wage" and updated to reflect a yet to be defined standard under the remit of the Low Pay Commission
  • Repeal the 2016 Trade Union Act and other 2022 anti-strike legislation, although this seems to be up in the air
  • Introduce a points based immigration system.
  • Introduce the 'Take Back Control Act', similar to the Conservatives, allowing local authorities to take more control over areas like industrial strategy and transport (bit short on detail).
  • Reduce the voting age to 16 (not sure if this is set in stone)
  • Renationalise the railways as and when contracts expire.
  • Free breakfast clubs and the overseeing of toothbrushing.
  • 13k more community police officers (or PCSO's); halving knife crime in 10 years.
  • 8.5k more mental health staff
There's an enormous amount of guff in the link you provided. Lots of meaningless platitudes like "break down the barriers to opportunity" and "unlock the potential of" or amorphous and materially lacking indications of future endeavours: We learn that Labour will "develop plans which will see", "develop policies to ensure", "set out a clear roadmap for" "deliver a long term plan that" and "introduce standards that will." It all sounds very exciting and yet despite its verbosity is very slight on fundamental detail.

My main takeaway is that that page is going out of its way to sound like it's a lot more than it actually is.


Edit: I confess I did try to read it all but my eyes started to involuntarily glaze over on many more than one occasions.
Yep. Also to take any of these policies seriously would mean ignoring all the pledges Starmer has dropped since becoming leader.

There’s just no evidence Labour will keep to any promises. The guy is running on not believing in this

 
Last edited:
The mum's comments today have set me off a bit though - saying it's the social worker's fault that her son is dead because they didn't force entry into the house on January 2nd. The mum hadn't been in contact with her ex to check in on her 2 year old son since before Christmas.

It sounds like the social worker called the police on the 2nd anyway, so on face value it sounds like they did a decent job. It makes me wonder what the police did with it though if they knew there was a 2 year-old involved.
 
It sounds like the social worker called the police on the 2nd anyway, so on face value it sounds like they did a decent job. It makes me wonder what the police did with it though if they knew there was a 2 year-old involved.
Not only did they call the police but they canvassed neighbours, checked in two days later and called the police again, and then found the landlady to get access to the house and then discovered the two bodies. And now they're off work, presumably seeing professionals to work through the trauma. But according to mother of the fecking year it's all the social worker's fault.

I'll admit it riles me up more than it should simply because I don't want to think about the poor kiddo.
 
Not only did they call the police but they canvassed neighbours, checked in two days later and called the police again, and then found the landlady to get access to the house and then discovered the two bodies. And now they're off work, presumably seeing professionals to work through the trauma. But according to mother of the fecking year it's all the social worker's fault.

I'll admit it riles me up more than it should simply because I don't want to think about the poor kiddo.

Yeah, it's awful. I can't look at the picture of the kid on the BBC, it's one of those horrible stories that has so many what-ifs and the most distressing outcome.
 
You want to worry about the younger ones as well as the old:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/01/younger-voters-far-right-europe
Poor Sweet, maybe you're going to be in some sort of Squeezed Middle? :)
Tbf I was just talking about Britain(Although the same applies to Ireland and America). Also I might be wrong but I’m pretty sure most of the youth vote in France in the first round went to Melenchon(Left wing Corbyn).

But yes had Corbyn won in 2019 then we would of needed to expand the peoples army into Central Europe! Also the Dutch are just like this. They have cool drugs, sex and bicycles yet they are a bunch of reactionaries…..it’s such a typical Dutch move!
 
I can’t imagine he would want to repeat the leadership years. I’m sure he recently did a joke Christmas with some lads in Irish balaclava. He’s living his best live now.

Yep your probably right about who’s planted the story. It’s genuinely going to be strange watching Starmer on the campaign trail in the next election.
It'll be strange because he's the first leader since Boris Johnson to achieve the Boris level of lies. We will know he will U turn on anything.
 

I'm not sure why she puts investment in inverted commas, the new plant will save 5000 jobs according to the BBC. I know feck all about steel but if that is the case, is it not better to lose 3000 than 8000, and with those remaining state-of-the-art jobs?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-wales-68023528
Maybe it's just kneejerking, whatever the government/other side do it must be wrong.
 
You have to admit, it was pretty clever of people to buy them for cheap and rent them out for mint
Those “people” were housing developers that contacted qualifying council house residents who would never be able to purchase their home, offered them the deposit in order to buy the house on the basis the housing developer could then purchase the house off them at a discounted rate.

What it meant is that the person living there got a nice little cash lump sum and probably enough for a very healthy deposit on their own house. Meanwhile the housing developer bought a house for a fraction of the market cost.
 
I'm not sure why she puts investment in inverted commas, the new plant will save 5000 jobs according to the BBC. I know feck all about steel but if that is the case, is it not better to lose 3000 than 8000, and with those remaining state-of-the-art jobs?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-wales-68023528
Maybe it's just kneejerking, whatever the government/other side do it must be wrong.

3000 is still a lot of jobs and a massive blow to the local economy.
Let’s not forget this: