I don't think there's a foreign power behind this one. Starmer is a technocrat who has struggled hugely in the top job. Let's be fair: he only won the election because he was the least bad option for many voters. He is no Blair, and had no vision for what his government would be. Blair made some blunders, but he introduced radical policies in his first year: minimum wage, BoE independence and large increases in education funding. What did Starmer do? Tried to remove winter fuel payments from pensioners. Whatever your opinion on the payments, it was very poor politics. Get your big wins out there and bury the bad news in the shit. Starmer has been his own worst enemy.
-
Nobody makes football chants that go along with modern music do they. Where's the APT. mix where we stick Yatesy in the middle of it.
-
Labour only won the election because there wasn't an idealogue in charge who would scare the horses, and give the propoganda bias something to get their teeth into. (I'm no fan, but I recognise the absence of a viable alternative)
"Here you go Kier, you've got no money, everything is broken, and you have to make everyone happy very quickly or one side or the other of the political spectum will eat you alive. P.S. Nobody is going to report fairly on anything you do, but they will try to constantly probe for any weakness - real or contrived.
You've got two years. Off you go."
Who are you imagining could have put the pin back in that particular hand grenade?
-
Someone with better political nous than Kier Starmer for a start. I don't buy this "there's no money so you can't do anything garbage". As I clearly stated, there is money if they adopted the right policies such as ending Quantitative Tightening which is just a straight transfer of public money from the treasury to the banks. The Labour government in 1945 inherited a far worse position, yet managed to create the NHS and fund a massive expansion of public housing. Granted, we're not at the scale of destruction that we faced back then, but a comprehensive public works program to fix roads, mend crumbling public buildings (schools, hospitals etc.) and the railways would go a long way to providing demonstrable improvements. Like I said, the Labour government has done some good things, but it's all been overshadowed by avoidable political missteps.
Take that @£40bn from QT and stick it into infrastructure and you'd get a good return on investment and clear improvements for voters to see. Those bonds need never leave the BoE, and should simply be allowed to expire; they shouldn't act as a drag on public sector investment and necessitate tax rises to pay for the shortfall. Economic illiteracy inherited from Osborne and the Tories
-
Seeing as you bring it up, here's a good article on ROI from transport schemes.
-
There's a lot of economic policy and orthodoxy that I don't agree with. That doesn't change the fact that (for whatever reason) there is less money, and more demands on spending on this occasion.....with an increased level of scrutiny and politically biased reporting.
Grand gesture lefty woke visionary leadership is exactly what the right wing project ghouls are hoping for to tear the country apart. We are all going to have to learn to hold our noses a bit, for the collective good, to get something a bit less asset stripping and divisive for a bit.
In my opinion. Your mileage may vary.
-
You mean like the grand gesture visionary woke leadership of Blair? He offered plenty and delivered on many fronts. If your definition of visionary woke politics is repairing roads and fixing schools then we've no chance.
Also, we're more orthodox than most. None of the other major central banks (ECB, Fed, BoJ) are selling bonds accumulated under QE; the BoE is the only one transferring billions from the taxpayer to banks (yet again). That's nothing to do with woke lefty nonsense, and everything to do with sensible economics. I don't see any of those countries being run by lefty woke governments, and I don't see their bond prices going through the roof (beyond the effects of Trump's war).
Of course the alternative, your alternative it would seem, is to bury your head in the sand and hope it all works out. That's exactly why we face a challenge from the far-right. If the government doesn't do anything to visibly improve things then they're toast, and what's next? You bandy the word about with reckless abandon, but eventually such conditions can give rise to authoritarian or fascist states.
-
Incidentally, I've just seen a poll of labour members and in a straight fight Starmer comfortabley beats Streeting. The only candidate that beats him is Burnham.
Only two people get less support than Streeting: Mahmood and Carns (who even I haven't heard of).
-
Addit: looking closer, Rayner and Miliband also barely beat him. There is a chunk of labour members who love Ed Miliband and are frankly delusional if they think he would be plausible as PM. As for Rayner, the tax stuff kills her hopes IMHO, but you never know with the Labour members. Many people left when Starmer was elected, so most of the Trots have gone to Corbyn's new party, the one with the worst name ever.
Anyway, Streeting has clearly read the runes and is trying to play a clever game. I'm assuming he's seen the poll results and decided to hitch his wagon to Burnham and get some reflected glory amongst members. Perhaps a Blair/Brown style deal. He's young enough to play a longer game.
-
The plot thickens with Josh Simons set to step aside for Burnham. Of course, the NEC has the final decision over who stands as the labour candidate, and its packed with Starmer loyalists. Be interesting to see if they try and block his candidacy again. IMHO it would look very weak from Starmer if he did so. Streeting never had the numbers, so I suspect he already knew about Simons going and had been in touch with Burnham.
-
Streeting as Chancellor in a Burnham government?
-
Midway through a very large and unpleasant dump I got a message from a realtor to say he is bringing a client over on half an hour to view my apartment. Vaya con Dios, my friend.
-
It's not just the UK electorate that needs to hold it's nose then....
-
It’s a massive gamble by Burnham, it’s not the best seat to have given Reform have just won every ward in that area in the locals.
But at the same time if Burnham can’t win it then pretty much every Labour MP loses their seat at the next election.
Hopefully last weeks vote was an anti Starmer vote more than a pro Farage one.
-
Pretty confident it was (another) anti incumbent vote. Question is whether Burnham can personify that.
-
What is Burnham going to do to my national insurance bill and corporation tax?
