The Labour government thread

[stringvest]

I don't think I've been as disappointed with the political regime in my lifetime as with this one so far.  Too many fucking obvious political missteps, that even a moron could anticipate causing huge damage to the credibility of the leadership, and too many poor and downright wrong policy decisions in order to placate bodies/organisations/countries they should be ignoring or in the case of Israel, treating with utter contempt.

[sir roger]

Even as a Starmer critic I have been pleased by some of the stuff they have put forward, but feel that it should not have been beyond their wit to finance a change to the child benefit cap ( even just move it to the 3rd child for now ? ) and keep the winter fuel payment,  which would have made the world of difference to people's view of his first period in office.

[Section_31]

I think the fundamental problem is the west is run by money markets. They set the rules, they literally decide what's black and what's white.

 

The credit crunch was essentially the markets 'choosing' to label bad debt as good debt.

 

If they want to allow you to do something - such as spend vast quantities of cash rebuilding the country - they can,  they just rebrand/relabel it. 

 

If they don't want you to, they won't. Sounds like Reeves is attempting some sort of jiggery pokery along those lines but there's only so far it'll be allowed to go.

 

It's obvious 'they' want us on the bones of our arse and just getting by, and the only parties allowed in are those that will toe the line. 

 

That's why it's easy for the Lib Dems, Reform, SNP and the likes to stand on the sidelines telling everyrone what they'd do if only they were given a shot, but they wouldn't/couldn't.

 

Until the system goes, in the States first I imagine, we're perma fucked. 

 

That being said, it's beyond dispute that Labour are held to a much higher standard. This Taylor Swift stuff is absolute bollocks of the highest order. 

 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

https://news.sky.com/story/blow-to-no-10s-investment-summit-as-port-giant-pulls-1bn-announcement-over-pando-row-13231876

[Mook]

5 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

I think the fundamental problem is the west is run by money markets. They set the rules, they literally decide what's black and what's white.

 

The credit crunch was essentially the markets 'choosing' to label bad debt as good debt.

 

If they want to allow you to do something - such as spend vast quantities of cash rebuilding the country - they can,  they just rebrand/relabel it. 

 

If they don't want you to, they won't. Sounds like Reeves is attempting some sort of jiggery pokery along those lines but there's only so far it'll be allowed to go.

 

It's obvious 'they' want us on the bones of our arse and just getting by, and the only parties allowed in are those that will toe the line. 

 

That's why it's easy for the Lib Dems, Reform, SNP and the likes to stand on the sidelines telling everyrone what they'd do if only they were given a shot, but they wouldn't/couldn't.

 

Until the system goes, in the States first I imagine, we're perma fucked. 

 

That being said, it's beyond dispute that Labour are held to a much higher standard. This Taylor Swift stuff is absolute bollocks of the highest order. 

 

 

We've had the SNP in power up here for years and they're no better.

 

It's all just one unstoppable machine of neoliberal, free market capitalism but you'd hope a Labour government might make things marginally better for the poor. Unfortunately this lot are only a Labour government in name.

[Red Phoenix]

On 21/09/2024 at 09:44, Numero Veinticinco said:

I’m still waiting for RP’s book to come out and make sense of it all. 

 

Saw this as I was looking for an old post.

 

That's never going to happen I don't think. Looking at the state of the world now I'd actually loathe to do something like that, especially imagining how long it takes to write a book. I'd rather focus on getting back on with music as a way to get away from some of the shit that's going on instead of diving way further into it and trying to write about it.

 

There's plenty of good writers out there anyway doing things that are way better than I could ever do. Maybe because it's their main focus and they enjoy doing it. If I ever wrote anything it'd be fiction and I don't really like that either. In the past I've loved imagining ideas for fiction and writing bits and notes and I can get lost for hours doing that but I'm just not that suited to writing. Music will always be a priority over it I think.

[Arniepie]

46 minutes ago, sir roger said:

Even as a Starmer critic I have been pleased by some of the stuff they have put forward, but feel that it should not have been beyond their wit to finance a change to the child benefit cap ( even just move it to the 3rd child for now ? ) and keep the winter fuel payment,  which would have made the world of difference to people's view of his first period in office.

a lot of the stuff is barely getting reported (such as the workers rights bill)

more column inches have been devoted to a labour mp going to a taylor swift concert than when the tories used a pandemic to loot the country,to the tune of billions.

and for some reason.he still thinks he can appease him.

 

[Section_31]

Taylor Swift and so forth.

 

The Tory MP Geoffrey Cox has been missing parliamentary votes and sitting days while working at his lucrative second job as a lawyer in Mauritius, the Guardian can reveal.

The former attorney general, who has declared at least £500,000 in pay from his second job this year, was on the Indian Ocean island for at least three days in mid-September and missed two votes on cuts to the winter fuel allowance.

[Bjornebye]

3 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

Taylor Swift and so forth.

 

The Tory MP Geoffrey Cox has been missing parliamentary votes and sitting days while working at his lucrative second job as a lawyer in Mauritius, the Guardian can reveal.

The former attorney general, who has declared at least £500,000 in pay from his second job this year, was on the Indian Ocean island for at least three days in mid-September and missed two votes on cuts to the winter fuel allowance.

Yeah but Starmer went the match!!!! 

[Section_31]

Independent has turned on labour lately, they must have done something that spooky kgb twat isn't happy about.

[Mudface]

5 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

Independent has turned on labour lately, they must have done something that spooky kgb twat isn't happy about.

 

Got into power?

[Arniepie]

I'd be more inclined to be more critical of labour, if they entire media hadn't given them more stick on 4 months, than the Tories got in 14 fucking years.

Despite not actually doing anything wrong.

[Vincent Vega]

I’m really pissed off with them for hanging Louise Haigh out to dry because she told the truth about DP World and their treatment of the workers at P&O Ferries. Just because they want a few nice headlines about £1bn investment into London docks that DP World were proposing, and then threatened to take their ball home. It should be Labour Party policy to call out bad employers who take advantage of gaps in legislation to stitch up their workers. They should be told to shove their investment if they want to treat workers like that. 

[Vincent Vega]

18 hours ago, Section_31 said:

I think the fundamental problem is the west is run by money markets. They set the rules, they literally decide what's black and what's white.

 

The credit crunch was essentially the markets 'choosing' to label bad debt as good debt.

 

If they want to allow you to do something - such as spend vast quantities of cash rebuilding the country - they can,  they just rebrand/relabel it. 

 

If they don't want you to, they won't. Sounds like Reeves is attempting some sort of jiggery pokery along those lines but there's only so far it'll be allowed to go.

 

It's obvious 'they' want us on the bones of our arse and just getting by, and the only parties allowed in are those that will toe the line. 

 

That's why it's easy for the Lib Dems, Reform, SNP and the likes to stand on the sidelines telling everyrone what they'd do if only they were given a shot, but they wouldn't/couldn't.

 

Until the system goes, in the States first I imagine, we're perma fucked. 

 

That being said, it's beyond dispute that Labour are held to a much higher standard. This Taylor Swift stuff is absolute bollocks of the highest order. 

 

This from Ed Conway on Sky News is really interesting on levels of debt, and especially the levels of debt in the States. 
 

Surely there is an argument for moving some of the Covid debt to be paid off over a longer period as we did with the debt following the Second World War? If this meant we could actually borrow some more money to invest in this country and fix some of the problems that affect our everyday lives it might be a good thing. And we still wouldn’t be anywhere near the debt levels of the country our politicians so admire across the Atlantic.

[Vincent Vega]

Also, on the workers rights stuff, I’m really chuffed with most of the proposals in that. I especially like the proposal for companies having to pay sick pay from day one. I used to work somewhere where you didn’t get sick pay for the first three days. It just meant that you got people coming into work coughing their guts up and sneezing their germs everywhere because they couldn’t afford to take the hit of losing three days pay. This meant they spread their viruses to everyone else they worked with. And anyone who did stay off three days made sure they were off sick for 2 or 3 weeks to make up for the fact they had lost three days pay. It was a stupid self defeating policy.

 

The disappointing thing about these employment changes though, is that most of it won’t be implemented until 2027. I know small businesses might need time to adjust, but I don’t see why they can’t be implemented quicker for the bigger businesses out there. 

[Section_31]

This is what you're up against.

 

 

[Section_31]

52 minutes ago, Vincent Vega said:

This from Ed Conway on Sky News is really interesting on levels of debt, and especially the levels of debt in the States. 
 

Surely there is an argument for moving some of the Covid debt to be paid off over a longer period as we did with the debt following the Second World War? If this meant we could actually borrow some more money to invest in this country and fix some of the problems that affect our everyday lives it might be a good thing. And we still wouldn’t be anywhere near the debt levels of the country our politicians so admire across the Atlantic.

 

I think western economics has been on life support for decades.

 

People can't afford things so they borrow the money, which implodes the economy, the answer is to let them borrow more, while also seizing what's left of their public assets and selling that too.

 

Think about what happened after the credit crunch. Not only did nobody go to prison, in league with their allies in government they shifted all their financial burdens onto us.

 

Took over our care homes and children's homes, extracted money then left them not fit for purpose.

 

The high Street became a machine for squeezing every last drop of money out of people who were now broke. Cash for gold shop, cash converters, bookies.

 

People can't afford houses so they rent and get perpetually fucked over to the point where they'll never afford one.

 

They can't afford cars so they introduced the concept of lesse cars which are, you guessed it, going up in price every year. 

 

They fuck you, then they fuck you again, then they take you like an empty beer can and throw you over their shoulder.

 

If you look at the modern British economy, the word "hussle" used to be a pejorative term, now it's part of the business and employment vernacular. 

 

There seems to be a lack of entrepreneurship/business ideology that's focused on doing anything remotely long term or constructive, more on grift and blagging. That comes from the top.

 

Economies boom when ordinary folk have money and the confidence to spend it. If you have stable industries which pays people well and gives them a pensions you'll get a booming economy. 

 

What we've got now is sleight of hand, numbers on a sheet, low wage economy, a consumer economy where all the consumers are broke, and where all attempts to change the dynamic are killed at the source.

 

It's going to have to hit rock bottom before it changes, I fear, but with a nation which has been turned into idiots by design, I suspect they'll follow people with the wrong answers.

[Vincent Vega]

Sounds a lot like government by focus group and newspaper headlines to me. How about governing in the interests of Labour supporters?
 

Sick of them kowtowing to the red wall idiots. Try appealing to the majority of good people in the country, don’t worry about those who will probably switch to Farage anyway, because you will never be able to give them what they want. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Went to see Rachel Parris last night and she had an interesting theory about the winter fuel allowance.  Eight years ago, older people predominantly voted for Brexit and probably swung the vote.  Cutting the winter fuel allowance is Starmer's slow-burn revenge.

[Numero Veinticinco]

30 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Went to see Rachel Parris last night and she had an interesting theory about the winter fuel allowance.  Eight years ago, older people predominantly voted for Brexit and probably swung the vote.  Cutting the winter fuel allowance is Starmer's slow-burn revenge.

 

How does this sit with the 'Reeves is pulling the strings' theory? I think it's much more likely that they needed to raise money and decided that Pensioners are generally Tory voters anyway, so it'll do them the least damage. 

 

1 hour ago, Vincent Vega said:

Sounds a lot like government by focus group and newspaper headlines to me. How about governing in the interests of Labour supporters?
 

Sick of them kowtowing to the red wall idiots. Try appealing to the majority of good people in the country, don’t worry about those who will probably switch to Farage anyway, because you will never be able to give them what they want. 

 

Focusing on the economy, NHS, migration, and crime isn't really kowtowing to red wall idiots. These are important issues across the entire political spectrum, including those who voted Labour. Lots of Labour supporters care about these issues. Unless you're really meaning a subset of Labour supporters. 

[Vincent Vega]

48 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

 

How does this sit with the 'Reeves is pulling the strings' theory? I think it's much more likely that they needed to raise money and decided that Pensioners are generally Tory voters anyway, so it'll do them the least damage. 

 

 

Focusing on the economy, NHS, migration, and crime isn't really kowtowing to red wall idiots. These are important issues across the entire political spectrum, including those who voted Labour. Lots of Labour supporters care about these issues. Unless you're really meaning a subset of Labour supporters. 

I fully agree that those issues are important, my concern was the part in the second Tweet that says the focus will be on what swing voters want.
 

On the migration front especially, it’s right that efforts are made and seen to be made to crack down on those arriving on small boats. However, I would like to see Labour make the case for immigration being necessary, and that immigrants are welcome. We need them to fill vacancies in areas where we don’t have enough staff, and in areas where the population don’t want to fill jobs because they aren’t particularly desirable, and don’t pay well.

 

I would also like to see Labour change the policy that you can’t bring a spouse into the country to live with you unless you’re earning £38,700. Visa costs are also prohibitively expensive. It’s ludicrous that well off people like Sunak and Jeremy Hunt can bring their foreign spouse here, but most ordinary people wouldn’t be able to afford it. 

 

If you want to run government policy by focus groups and newspaper headlines, then you will run away from policies that are politically difficult but are maybe for the wider good (I’m specifically thinking about green policies here which right wing newspapers hate, and lots of swing voters are probably sceptical about). I would just like them to be a bit braver and pursue policies that the majority of Labour supporters would advocate. They shouldn’t be afraid to do things on the basis a few thousand people might switch their votes, because you might even attract new voters from elsewhere. 

[Arniepie]

3 hours ago, Section_31 said:

 

I think western economics has been on life support for decades.

 

People can't afford things so they borrow the money, which implodes the economy, the answer is to let them borrow more, while also seizing what's left of their public assets and selling that too.

 

Think about what happened after the credit crunch. Not only did nobody go to prison, in league with their allies in government they shifted all their financial burdens onto us.

 

Took over our care homes and children's homes, extracted money then left them not fit for purpose.

 

The high Street became a machine for squeezing every last drop of money out of people who were now broke. Cash for gold shop, cash converters, bookies.

 

People can't afford houses so they rent and get perpetually fucked over to the point where they'll never afford one.

 

They can't afford cars so they introduced the concept of lesse cars which are, you guessed it, going up in price every year. 

 

They fuck you, then they fuck you again, then they take you like an empty beer can and throw you over their shoulder.

 

If you look at the modern British economy, the word "hussle" used to be a pejorative term, now it's part of the business and employment vernacular. 

 

There seems to be a lack of entrepreneurship/business ideology that's focused on doing anything remotely long term or constructive, more on grift and blagging. That comes from the top.

 

Economies boom when ordinary folk have money and the confidence to spend it. If you have stable industries which pays people well and gives them a pensions you'll get a booming economy. 

 

What we've got now is sleight of hand, numbers on a sheet, low wage economy, a consumer economy where all the consumers are broke, and where all attempts to change the dynamic are killed at the source.

 

It's going to have to hit rock bottom before it changes, I fear, but with a nation which has been turned into idiots by design, I suspect they'll follow people with the wrong answers.

It seems to be everywhere.

My car insurance went up by a few Ton despite no claims.

I shopped round and got a better deal.They then got back in touch to say they could do it cheaper. 

So essentially you were trying to rip me off?

We are getting rinsed all over the show.

[Arniepie]

1 minute ago, Vincent Vega said:

I fully agree that those issues are important, my concern was the part in the second Tweet that says the focus will be on what swing voters want.
 

On the migration front especially, it’s right that efforts are made and seen to be made to crack down on those arriving on small boats. However, I would like to see Labour make the case for immigration being necessary, and that immigrants are welcome. We need them to fill vacancies in areas where we don’t have enough staff, and in areas where the population don’t want to fill jobs because they aren’t particularly desirable, and don’t pay well.

 

I would also like to see Labour change the policy that you can’t bring a spouse into the country to live with you unless you’re earning £38,700. Visa costs are also prohibitively expensive. It’s ludicrous that well off people like Sunak and Jeremy Hunt can bring their foreign spouse here, but most ordinary people wouldn’t be able to afford it. 

 

If you want to run government policy by focus groups and newspaper headlines, then you will run away from policies that are politically difficult but are maybe for the wider good (I’m specifically thinking about green policies here which right wing newspapers hate, and lots of swing voters are probably sceptical about). I would just like them to be a bit braver and pursue policies that the majority of Labour supporters would advocate. They shouldn’t be afraid to do things on the basis a few thousand people might switch their votes, because you might even attract new voters from elsewhere. 

I agreei but i think any even hint  that they are going 'soft'on immigration in the current ferbile atmosphere would be political suicide.

[Numero Veinticinco]

22 minutes ago, Vincent Vega said:

I fully agree that those issues are important, my concern was the part in the second Tweet that says the focus will be on what swing voters want.
 

On the migration front especially, it’s right that efforts are made and seen to be made to crack down on those arriving on small boats. However, I would like to see Labour make the case for immigration being necessary, and that immigrants are welcome. We need them to fill vacancies in areas where we don’t have enough staff, and in areas where the population don’t want to fill jobs because they aren’t particularly desirable, and don’t pay well.

 

I get it, I hear what you're saying. At the same time I have to acknowledge the political realities, because immigration is an issue for a lot of people and turning the tide on public opinion is going to take time. The first thing they need to do, before they start making the case for immigration again (and I agree that this is necessary), is to gain some credibility in this area. Fix the currently broken system that's resulting in kids drowning in the channel and people coming here who are coming in a way that's not acceptable. There's a problem that needs fixing, then they can start to be serious about making the case for immigration - but immigration that's primarily for the benefit of the country. It has to work for everyone, or it isn't going to work at all, in my view. 

 

29 minutes ago, Vincent Vega said:

If you want to run government policy by focus groups and newspaper headlines, then you will run away from policies that are politically difficult but are maybe for the wider good

 

I honestly don't think this is the case. I do think they are willing to be unpopular to begin with. I get that this fella has posted what he posted, but overall they've got to run the country in a way that people like or explain why they're doing it so people understand. My major criticism with the early days of the government has been comms. They can convince people of just about anything if the comms are good enough. 

 

[an tha]

23 hours ago, Nelly-Szoboszlai said:

https://news.sky.com/story/blow-to-no-10s-investment-summit-as-port-giant-pulls-1bn-announcement-over-pando-row-13231876

This narks me - i expect and want a lab gov to call out shite employers and poor treatment of workers - but of course the shite narrative is 'oh look lab are costing us investment' and worse Starmer then feels like he has to pander to that narrative.

 

The deck is so loaded.