Get rid of Truss and bring forward a GE
......................
The best thing that could happen at this stage.
What are the next Government offering up to bring the country forward?
Mordaunt knows what she's doing with that line.
100% still angling for the leadership role
The lady actually done a runner, looool. This is too funny
She has a 'genuine reason' not to be there apparently.
To be fair to her Mordaunt is handling it better than Truss would.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 47 seconds ago
The best thing that could happen at this stage.
What are the next Government offering up to bring the country forward?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's standard practice in today's British politics for a party of opposition (whichever it is) to be fairly coy about its specific policy agenda in the middle of the government's term in office. Reasons for doing so are: 1) Why give the opponents extra time to develop attack lines against your policies? 2) Need to avoid using up the media coverage on policy announcements early, meaning public will have forgotten by the time the election comes along, and media won't cover in as much detail as they are old news. 3) Can be politically advantageous to use the Mourinho strategy of sitting back and waiting for your opponent to make mistakes. 4) To make credible, costed spending pledges, you need to go on the economic data of the moment, which fluctuates - so a manifesto style detailed policy platform isn't possible until the run-up to an election.
I think some of the criticism of Starmer, from the Left as well as the Right, fails to appreciate this, and the fact that it can be sensible for a Labour leader to be more risk-averse than a Tory one because the partisan conservative media has a strong influence on the broader agenda.
That said, I think Starmer has been a bit too cautious, and a more effective communicator like Blair (the most talented political operator of the last three decades whatever we think about his politics) would have gone further in establishing in the minds of the public what Labour stand for, what its priorities would be.
On a substantive level, I think there can be no doubt that a Labour government would differ significantly from the last four Tory PMs, because both its philosophical foundations and its base of support are very different. So:
- Will pursue a less antagonistic policy with regard to the EU, and will probably attempt to reduce the trading barriers caused by Brexit while not going so far as to be seen as reversing Brexit.
- Will be to the left of the Tories in economic policy: not pushing aggressively toward deregulation and tax reduction for the rich, and looking to invest more in services and infrastructure. I expect they will not go as far as I would want in that respect, both due to fear of being portrayed as another Corbyn and due to the constraints caused by the present crisis.
- They won't flirt with anti-environmental rhetoric, and will shift from the current mixture of policies that pay lip-service to climate action while undermining it, to policies that do address it but not boldly enough.
Etc. etc. I'd love to see a Labour government that is as radical as the Atlee administration that brought in the NHS and welfare state in the 1940s, with a focus on constitutional reform to protect our democracy, green investment, and strengthening cooperation with liberal democratic allies. I don't see that happening, but even having a sane government that isn't primarily accountable to hysterical voices on the libertarian and nationalist fringes would be a massive step in the right direction.
Believe it or not, I started out writing that post intending to be succinct.
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 14 minutes ago
She has a 'genuine reason' not to be there apparently.
To be fair to her Mordaunt is handling it better than Truss would.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That genuine reason being that she is now a lame duck and has faaaack all to say unless Jeremy Hunt says she can say something.
The whole thing has been hugely embarrassing for the country and faaaacked the market for no reason.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 4 minutes ago
Believe it or not, I started out writing that post intending to be succinct.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Labour have given us the policy bones of their incoming manifesto several times this summer as best they can without having access to the actual treasury figures. one think is for sure it is not to turn the UK into self decline and international laughing stock or make the rump UK population bankrupt and possibly homeless with failing pensions for those at retirement.
"The Prime Minister is not under a desk."
Maybe she doesn't like who's sitting there!..
'Things will be chaos under a Corbyn Government' they all said in 2015/16.
If you voted for Brexit and then for the Tories.....kindly do the country a favour and sit the next few rounds out.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
Get rid of Truss and bring forward a GE
......................
The best thing that could happen at this stage.
What are the next Government offering up to bring the country forward?
----------------------------------------------
I’m a Labour voter VC, but let’s be clear; Starmer won’t have any money to do anything about the current situation.
Gilts markets won’t stand for UK borrowing. Best he can do is to inflate the debt away, but try selling 10% inflation rates to the voters.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
Believe it or not, I started out writing that post intending to be succinct.
-------------------------
Don’t you always.
comment by Beeb (U1841)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
Believe it or not, I started out writing that post intending to be succinct.
-------------------------
Don’t you always.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
always interesting and informative though, what RR composes.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 47 seconds ago
The best thing that could happen at this stage.
What are the next Government offering up to bring the country forward?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's standard practice in today's British politics for a party of opposition (whichever it is) to be fairly coy about its specific policy agenda in the middle of the government's term in office. Reasons for doing so are: 1) Why give the opponents extra time to develop attack lines against your policies? 2) Need to avoid using up the media coverage on policy announcements early, meaning public will have forgotten by the time the election comes along, and media won't cover in as much detail as they are old news. 3) Can be politically advantageous to use the Mourinho strategy of sitting back and waiting for your opponent to make mistakes. 4) To make credible, costed spending pledges, you need to go on the economic data of the moment, which fluctuates - so a manifesto style detailed policy platform isn't possible until the run-up to an election.
I think some of the criticism of Starmer, from the Left as well as the Right, fails to appreciate this, and the fact that it can be sensible for a Labour leader to be more risk-averse than a Tory one because the partisan conservative media has a strong influence on the broader agenda.
That said, I think Starmer has been a bit too cautious, and a more effective communicator like Blair (the most talented political operator of the last three decades whatever we think about his politics) would have gone further in establishing in the minds of the public what Labour stand for, what its priorities would be.
On a substantive level, I think there can be no doubt that a Labour government would differ significantly from the last four Tory PMs, because both its philosophical foundations and its base of support are very different. So:
- Will pursue a less antagonistic policy with regard to the EU, and will probably attempt to reduce the trading barriers caused by Brexit while not going so far as to be seen as reversing Brexit.
- Will be to the left of the Tories in economic policy: not pushing aggressively toward deregulation and tax reduction for the rich, and looking to invest more in services and infrastructure. I expect they will not go as far as I would want in that respect, both due to fear of being portrayed as another Corbyn and due to the constraints caused by the present crisis.
- They won't flirt with anti-environmental rhetoric, and will shift from the current mixture of policies that pay lip-service to climate action while undermining it, to policies that do address it but not boldly enough.
Etc. etc. I'd love to see a Labour government that is as radical as the Atlee administration that brought in the NHS and welfare state in the 1940s, with a focus on constitutional reform to protect our democracy, green investment, and strengthening cooperation with liberal democratic allies. I don't see that happening, but even having a sane government that isn't primarily accountable to hysterical voices on the libertarian and nationalist fringes would be a massive step in the right direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
An excellent post RR. Of the fact that I agree with all of it may sway my view. They are all points I have thought about, indeed written about, but less eloquently.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 47 seconds ago
The best thing that could happen at this stage.
What are the next Government offering up to bring the country forward?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's standard practice in today's British politics for a party of opposition (whichever it is) to be fairly coy about its specific policy agenda in the middle of the government's term in office. Reasons for doing so are: 1) Why give the opponents extra time to develop attack lines against your policies? 2) Need to avoid using up the media coverage on policy announcements early, meaning public will have forgotten by the time the election comes along, and media won't cover in as much detail as they are old news. 3) Can be politically advantageous to use the Mourinho strategy of sitting back and waiting for your opponent to make mistakes. 4) To make credible, costed spending pledges, you need to go on the economic data of the moment, which fluctuates - so a manifesto style detailed policy platform isn't possible until the run-up to an election.
I think some of the criticism of Starmer, from the Left as well as the Right, fails to appreciate this, and the fact that it can be sensible for a Labour leader to be more risk-averse than a Tory one because the partisan conservative media has a strong influence on the broader agenda.
That said, I think Starmer has been a bit too cautious, and a more effective communicator like Blair (the most talented political operator of the last three decades whatever we think about his politics) would have gone further in establishing in the minds of the public what Labour stand for, what its priorities would be.
On a substantive level, I think there can be no doubt that a Labour government would differ significantly from the last four Tory PMs, because both its philosophical foundations and its base of support are very different. So:
- Will pursue a less antagonistic policy with regard to the EU, and will probably attempt to reduce the trading barriers caused by Brexit while not going so far as to be seen as reversing Brexit.
- Will be to the left of the Tories in economic policy: not pushing aggressively toward deregulation and tax reduction for the rich, and looking to invest more in services and infrastructure. I expect they will not go as far as I would want in that respect, both due to fear of being portrayed as another Corbyn and due to the constraints caused by the present crisis.
- They won't flirt with anti-environmental rhetoric, and will shift from the current mixture of policies that pay lip-service to climate action while undermining it, to policies that do address it but not boldly enough.
Etc. etc. I'd love to see a Labour government that is as radical as the Atlee administration that brought in the NHS and welfare state in the 1940s, with a focus on constitutional reform to protect our democracy, green investment, and strengthening cooperation with liberal democratic allies. I don't see that happening, but even having a sane government that isn't primarily accountable to hysterical voices on the libertarian and nationalist fringes would be a massive step in the right direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Having a written constitution would help IMO.
I do find it funny that Labour are being asked what their plans are to fix Tory fck up after fck up.
Labour need to call of vote of no confidence. If the Tories vote for the Gov, they would look even more ridiculous.
I hear she hates what Boris did with the flat & has an interior decorator coming round...& her time is precious
The interior decorator I mean
comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 19 seconds ago
I do find it funny that Labour are being asked what their plans are to fix Tory fck up after fck up.
Labour need to call of vote of no confidence. If the Tories vote for the Gov, they would look even more ridiculous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At his point, you guys just need a new election, not that it will change much but at least you guys can be sure that this is the will of the people and quietly bare it. Sadly the people can be stupid.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 47 seconds ago
The best thing that could happen at this stage.
What are the next Government offering up to bring the country forward?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's standard practice in today's British politics for a party of opposition (whichever it is) to be fairly coy about its specific policy agenda in the middle of the government's term in office. Reasons for doing so are: 1) Why give the opponents extra time to develop attack lines against your policies? 2) Need to avoid using up the media coverage on policy announcements early, meaning public will have forgotten by the time the election comes along, and media won't cover in as much detail as they are old news. 3) Can be politically advantageous to use the Mourinho strategy of sitting back and waiting for your opponent to make mistakes. 4) To make credible, costed spending pledges, you need to go on the economic data of the moment, which fluctuates - so a manifesto style detailed policy platform isn't possible until the run-up to an election.
I think some of the criticism of Starmer, from the Left as well as the Right, fails to appreciate this, and the fact that it can be sensible for a Labour leader to be more risk-averse than a Tory one because the partisan conservative media has a strong influence on the broader agenda.
That said, I think Starmer has been a bit too cautious, and a more effective communicator like Blair (the most talented political operator of the last three decades whatever we think about his politics) would have gone further in establishing in the minds of the public what Labour stand for, what its priorities would be.
On a substantive level, I think there can be no doubt that a Labour government would differ significantly from the last four Tory PMs, because both its philosophical foundations and its base of support are very different. So:
- Will pursue a less antagonistic policy with regard to the EU, and will probably attempt to reduce the trading barriers caused by Brexit while not going so far as to be seen as reversing Brexit.
- Will be to the left of the Tories in economic policy: not pushing aggressively toward deregulation and tax reduction for the rich, and looking to invest more in services and infrastructure. I expect they will not go as far as I would want in that respect, both due to fear of being portrayed as another Corbyn and due to the constraints caused by the present crisis.
- They won't flirt with anti-environmental rhetoric, and will shift from the current mixture of policies that pay lip-service to climate action while undermining it, to policies that do address it but not boldly enough.
Etc. etc. I'd love to see a Labour government that is as radical as the Atlee administration that brought in the NHS and welfare state in the 1940s, with a focus on constitutional reform to protect our democracy, green investment, and strengthening cooperation with liberal democratic allies. I don't see that happening, but even having a sane government that isn't primarily accountable to hysterical voices on the libertarian and nationalist fringes would be a massive step in the right direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is all well and good RR, but for Labour to be put in power they are going to have to win over a hell of a lot of people who voted Tory last time.
Labour need to give the voters some idea of what they stand for.
Rejoining the EU may be a good starting point, if they explain it properly so that morons can understand it.
I do find it funny that Labour are being asked what their plans are to fix Tory fck up after fck up.
................
I would imagine it is on the mind of most sensible voters.
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 47 seconds ago
The best thing that could happen at this stage.
What are the next Government offering up to bring the country forward?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's standard practice in today's British politics for a party of opposition (whichever it is) to be fairly coy about its specific policy agenda in the middle of the government's term in office. Reasons for doing so are: 1) Why give the opponents extra time to develop attack lines against your policies? 2) Need to avoid using up the media coverage on policy announcements early, meaning public will have forgotten by the time the election comes along, and media won't cover in as much detail as they are old news. 3) Can be politically advantageous to use the Mourinho strategy of sitting back and waiting for your opponent to make mistakes. 4) To make credible, costed spending pledges, you need to go on the economic data of the moment, which fluctuates - so a manifesto style detailed policy platform isn't possible until the run-up to an election.
I think some of the criticism of Starmer, from the Left as well as the Right, fails to appreciate this, and the fact that it can be sensible for a Labour leader to be more risk-averse than a Tory one because the partisan conservative media has a strong influence on the broader agenda.
That said, I think Starmer has been a bit too cautious, and a more effective communicator like Blair (the most talented political operator of the last three decades whatever we think about his politics) would have gone further in establishing in the minds of the public what Labour stand for, what its priorities would be.
On a substantive level, I think there can be no doubt that a Labour government would differ significantly from the last four Tory PMs, because both its philosophical foundations and its base of support are very different. So:
- Will pursue a less antagonistic policy with regard to the EU, and will probably attempt to reduce the trading barriers caused by Brexit while not going so far as to be seen as reversing Brexit.
- Will be to the left of the Tories in economic policy: not pushing aggressively toward deregulation and tax reduction for the rich, and looking to invest more in services and infrastructure. I expect they will not go as far as I would want in that respect, both due to fear of being portrayed as another Corbyn and due to the constraints caused by the present crisis.
- They won't flirt with anti-environmental rhetoric, and will shift from the current mixture of policies that pay lip-service to climate action while undermining it, to policies that do address it but not boldly enough.
Etc. etc. I'd love to see a Labour government that is as radical as the Atlee administration that brought in the NHS and welfare state in the 1940s, with a focus on constitutional reform to protect our democracy, green investment, and strengthening cooperation with liberal democratic allies. I don't see that happening, but even having a sane government that isn't primarily accountable to hysterical voices on the libertarian and nationalist fringes would be a massive step in the right direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Having a written constitution would help IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The ancient English/British constitution has evolved over centuries. There hasnt been one instigating or revolutionary defining moment in our history that has called for a definitive written bill of rights and common laws as it has in other more recent Republics formed around the World. There has been several documents in history that our constitution evolves and shapes from such as The Doomsday Book, Magna Carta the The Glorious Revolution Bill of Rights, 1707 Acts and Treaty of Union etc etc. Be a hell of a job to define the whole Constitution on a written parchment.
Or we start again from a new beginning.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 38 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 47 seconds ago
The best thing that could happen at this stage.
What are the next Government offering up to bring the country forward?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's standard practice in today's British politics for a party of opposition (whichever it is) to be fairly coy about its specific policy agenda in the middle of the government's term in office. Reasons for doing so are: 1) Why give the opponents extra time to develop attack lines against your policies? 2) Need to avoid using up the media coverage on policy announcements early, meaning public will have forgotten by the time the election comes along, and media won't cover in as much detail as they are old news. 3) Can be politically advantageous to use the Mourinho strategy of sitting back and waiting for your opponent to make mistakes. 4) To make credible, costed spending pledges, you need to go on the economic data of the moment, which fluctuates - so a manifesto style detailed policy platform isn't possible until the run-up to an election.
I think some of the criticism of Starmer, from the Left as well as the Right, fails to appreciate this, and the fact that it can be sensible for a Labour leader to be more risk-averse than a Tory one because the partisan conservative media has a strong influence on the broader agenda.
That said, I think Starmer has been a bit too cautious, and a more effective communicator like Blair (the most talented political operator of the last three decades whatever we think about his politics) would have gone further in establishing in the minds of the public what Labour stand for, what its priorities would be.
On a substantive level, I think there can be no doubt that a Labour government would differ significantly from the last four Tory PMs, because both its philosophical foundations and its base of support are very different. So:
- Will pursue a less antagonistic policy with regard to the EU, and will probably attempt to reduce the trading barriers caused by Brexit while not going so far as to be seen as reversing Brexit.
- Will be to the left of the Tories in economic policy: not pushing aggressively toward deregulation and tax reduction for the rich, and looking to invest more in services and infrastructure. I expect they will not go as far as I would want in that respect, both due to fear of being portrayed as another Corbyn and due to the constraints caused by the present crisis.
- They won't flirt with anti-environmental rhetoric, and will shift from the current mixture of policies that pay lip-service to climate action while undermining it, to policies that do address it but not boldly enough.
Etc. etc. I'd love to see a Labour government that is as radical as the Atlee administration that brought in the NHS and welfare state in the 1940s, with a focus on constitutional reform to protect our democracy, green investment, and strengthening cooperation with liberal democratic allies. I don't see that happening, but even having a sane government that isn't primarily accountable to hysterical voices on the libertarian and nationalist fringes would be a massive step in the right direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
An excellent post RR. Of the fact that I agree with all of it may sway my view. They are all points I have thought about, indeed written about, but less eloquently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be very much in the Tory party’s interest to have an election asap and get out of office leaving Starmer with an impossible task to turn it round
People have very short memories,in 4 years time a Tory party would be looked upon far more favourably with the media pulling apart Starmers time in office
comment by Paulpowersleftfoot Culer is a shiithouse 💩 (U1037)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 38 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 47 seconds ago
The best thing that could happen at this stage.
What are the next Government offering up to bring the country forward?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's standard practice in today's British politics for a party of opposition (whichever it is) to be fairly coy about its specific policy agenda in the middle of the government's term in office. Reasons for doing so are: 1) Why give the opponents extra time to develop attack lines against your policies? 2) Need to avoid using up the media coverage on policy announcements early, meaning public will have forgotten by the time the election comes along, and media won't cover in as much detail as they are old news. 3) Can be politically advantageous to use the Mourinho strategy of sitting back and waiting for your opponent to make mistakes. 4) To make credible, costed spending pledges, you need to go on the economic data of the moment, which fluctuates - so a manifesto style detailed policy platform isn't possible until the run-up to an election.
I think some of the criticism of Starmer, from the Left as well as the Right, fails to appreciate this, and the fact that it can be sensible for a Labour leader to be more risk-averse than a Tory one because the partisan conservative media has a strong influence on the broader agenda.
That said, I think Starmer has been a bit too cautious, and a more effective communicator like Blair (the most talented political operator of the last three decades whatever we think about his politics) would have gone further in establishing in the minds of the public what Labour stand for, what its priorities would be.
On a substantive level, I think there can be no doubt that a Labour government would differ significantly from the last four Tory PMs, because both its philosophical foundations and its base of support are very different. So:
- Will pursue a less antagonistic policy with regard to the EU, and will probably attempt to reduce the trading barriers caused by Brexit while not going so far as to be seen as reversing Brexit.
- Will be to the left of the Tories in economic policy: not pushing aggressively toward deregulation and tax reduction for the rich, and looking to invest more in services and infrastructure. I expect they will not go as far as I would want in that respect, both due to fear of being portrayed as another Corbyn and due to the constraints caused by the present crisis.
- They won't flirt with anti-environmental rhetoric, and will shift from the current mixture of policies that pay lip-service to climate action while undermining it, to policies that do address it but not boldly enough.
Etc. etc. I'd love to see a Labour government that is as radical as the Atlee administration that brought in the NHS and welfare state in the 1940s, with a focus on constitutional reform to protect our democracy, green investment, and strengthening cooperation with liberal democratic allies. I don't see that happening, but even having a sane government that isn't primarily accountable to hysterical voices on the libertarian and nationalist fringes would be a massive step in the right direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
An excellent post RR. Of the fact that I agree with all of it may sway my view. They are all points I have thought about, indeed written about, but less eloquently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be very much in the Tory party’s interest to have an election asap and get out of office leaving Starmer with an impossible task to turn it round
People have very short memories,in 4 years time a Tory party would be looked upon far more favourably with the media pulling apart Starmers time in office
----------------------------------------------------------------------
especially with the Tory press doing their thing every day.
Sadly the chances of us getting another election are pretty low. The Conservatives simply can't afford to go to the public when they're this unpopular and they have a big majority in the house.
There was a news article this morning suggestion that if the opinion polls are reflected in actual voting (I know, big if) the Boris, Rees-Mogg, Hunt and Coffey would all lose their seats. And there's a lot more Tory MPs with much smaller majorities that would almost certainly lose.
Sadly these turkeys are not going to vote for Christmas.
If the Tory hierarchy had decided to create an untenable situation they couldn’t have done it any better than with this Truss clown
Sign in if you want to comment
"The Prime Minister is not under a desk."
Page 1 of 3
posted on 17/10/22
Get rid of Truss and bring forward a GE
......................
The best thing that could happen at this stage.
What are the next Government offering up to bring the country forward?
posted on 17/10/22
Mordaunt knows what she's doing with that line.
100% still angling for the leadership role
posted on 17/10/22
The lady actually done a runner, looool. This is too funny
posted on 17/10/22
She has a 'genuine reason' not to be there apparently.
To be fair to her Mordaunt is handling it better than Truss would.
posted on 17/10/22
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 47 seconds ago
The best thing that could happen at this stage.
What are the next Government offering up to bring the country forward?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's standard practice in today's British politics for a party of opposition (whichever it is) to be fairly coy about its specific policy agenda in the middle of the government's term in office. Reasons for doing so are: 1) Why give the opponents extra time to develop attack lines against your policies? 2) Need to avoid using up the media coverage on policy announcements early, meaning public will have forgotten by the time the election comes along, and media won't cover in as much detail as they are old news. 3) Can be politically advantageous to use the Mourinho strategy of sitting back and waiting for your opponent to make mistakes. 4) To make credible, costed spending pledges, you need to go on the economic data of the moment, which fluctuates - so a manifesto style detailed policy platform isn't possible until the run-up to an election.
I think some of the criticism of Starmer, from the Left as well as the Right, fails to appreciate this, and the fact that it can be sensible for a Labour leader to be more risk-averse than a Tory one because the partisan conservative media has a strong influence on the broader agenda.
That said, I think Starmer has been a bit too cautious, and a more effective communicator like Blair (the most talented political operator of the last three decades whatever we think about his politics) would have gone further in establishing in the minds of the public what Labour stand for, what its priorities would be.
On a substantive level, I think there can be no doubt that a Labour government would differ significantly from the last four Tory PMs, because both its philosophical foundations and its base of support are very different. So:
- Will pursue a less antagonistic policy with regard to the EU, and will probably attempt to reduce the trading barriers caused by Brexit while not going so far as to be seen as reversing Brexit.
- Will be to the left of the Tories in economic policy: not pushing aggressively toward deregulation and tax reduction for the rich, and looking to invest more in services and infrastructure. I expect they will not go as far as I would want in that respect, both due to fear of being portrayed as another Corbyn and due to the constraints caused by the present crisis.
- They won't flirt with anti-environmental rhetoric, and will shift from the current mixture of policies that pay lip-service to climate action while undermining it, to policies that do address it but not boldly enough.
Etc. etc. I'd love to see a Labour government that is as radical as the Atlee administration that brought in the NHS and welfare state in the 1940s, with a focus on constitutional reform to protect our democracy, green investment, and strengthening cooperation with liberal democratic allies. I don't see that happening, but even having a sane government that isn't primarily accountable to hysterical voices on the libertarian and nationalist fringes would be a massive step in the right direction.
posted on 17/10/22
Believe it or not, I started out writing that post intending to be succinct.
posted on 17/10/22
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 14 minutes ago
She has a 'genuine reason' not to be there apparently.
To be fair to her Mordaunt is handling it better than Truss would.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That genuine reason being that she is now a lame duck and has faaaack all to say unless Jeremy Hunt says she can say something.
The whole thing has been hugely embarrassing for the country and faaaacked the market for no reason.
posted on 17/10/22
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 4 minutes ago
Believe it or not, I started out writing that post intending to be succinct.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Labour have given us the policy bones of their incoming manifesto several times this summer as best they can without having access to the actual treasury figures. one think is for sure it is not to turn the UK into self decline and international laughing stock or make the rump UK population bankrupt and possibly homeless with failing pensions for those at retirement.
posted on 17/10/22
"The Prime Minister is not under a desk."
Maybe she doesn't like who's sitting there!..
posted on 17/10/22
'Things will be chaos under a Corbyn Government' they all said in 2015/16.
If you voted for Brexit and then for the Tories.....kindly do the country a favour and sit the next few rounds out.
posted on 17/10/22
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
Get rid of Truss and bring forward a GE
......................
The best thing that could happen at this stage.
What are the next Government offering up to bring the country forward?
----------------------------------------------
I’m a Labour voter VC, but let’s be clear; Starmer won’t have any money to do anything about the current situation.
Gilts markets won’t stand for UK borrowing. Best he can do is to inflate the debt away, but try selling 10% inflation rates to the voters.
posted on 17/10/22
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
Believe it or not, I started out writing that post intending to be succinct.
-------------------------
Don’t you always.
posted on 17/10/22
comment by Beeb (U1841)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
Believe it or not, I started out writing that post intending to be succinct.
-------------------------
Don’t you always.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
always interesting and informative though, what RR composes.
posted on 17/10/22
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 47 seconds ago
The best thing that could happen at this stage.
What are the next Government offering up to bring the country forward?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's standard practice in today's British politics for a party of opposition (whichever it is) to be fairly coy about its specific policy agenda in the middle of the government's term in office. Reasons for doing so are: 1) Why give the opponents extra time to develop attack lines against your policies? 2) Need to avoid using up the media coverage on policy announcements early, meaning public will have forgotten by the time the election comes along, and media won't cover in as much detail as they are old news. 3) Can be politically advantageous to use the Mourinho strategy of sitting back and waiting for your opponent to make mistakes. 4) To make credible, costed spending pledges, you need to go on the economic data of the moment, which fluctuates - so a manifesto style detailed policy platform isn't possible until the run-up to an election.
I think some of the criticism of Starmer, from the Left as well as the Right, fails to appreciate this, and the fact that it can be sensible for a Labour leader to be more risk-averse than a Tory one because the partisan conservative media has a strong influence on the broader agenda.
That said, I think Starmer has been a bit too cautious, and a more effective communicator like Blair (the most talented political operator of the last three decades whatever we think about his politics) would have gone further in establishing in the minds of the public what Labour stand for, what its priorities would be.
On a substantive level, I think there can be no doubt that a Labour government would differ significantly from the last four Tory PMs, because both its philosophical foundations and its base of support are very different. So:
- Will pursue a less antagonistic policy with regard to the EU, and will probably attempt to reduce the trading barriers caused by Brexit while not going so far as to be seen as reversing Brexit.
- Will be to the left of the Tories in economic policy: not pushing aggressively toward deregulation and tax reduction for the rich, and looking to invest more in services and infrastructure. I expect they will not go as far as I would want in that respect, both due to fear of being portrayed as another Corbyn and due to the constraints caused by the present crisis.
- They won't flirt with anti-environmental rhetoric, and will shift from the current mixture of policies that pay lip-service to climate action while undermining it, to policies that do address it but not boldly enough.
Etc. etc. I'd love to see a Labour government that is as radical as the Atlee administration that brought in the NHS and welfare state in the 1940s, with a focus on constitutional reform to protect our democracy, green investment, and strengthening cooperation with liberal democratic allies. I don't see that happening, but even having a sane government that isn't primarily accountable to hysterical voices on the libertarian and nationalist fringes would be a massive step in the right direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
An excellent post RR. Of the fact that I agree with all of it may sway my view. They are all points I have thought about, indeed written about, but less eloquently.
posted on 17/10/22
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 47 seconds ago
The best thing that could happen at this stage.
What are the next Government offering up to bring the country forward?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's standard practice in today's British politics for a party of opposition (whichever it is) to be fairly coy about its specific policy agenda in the middle of the government's term in office. Reasons for doing so are: 1) Why give the opponents extra time to develop attack lines against your policies? 2) Need to avoid using up the media coverage on policy announcements early, meaning public will have forgotten by the time the election comes along, and media won't cover in as much detail as they are old news. 3) Can be politically advantageous to use the Mourinho strategy of sitting back and waiting for your opponent to make mistakes. 4) To make credible, costed spending pledges, you need to go on the economic data of the moment, which fluctuates - so a manifesto style detailed policy platform isn't possible until the run-up to an election.
I think some of the criticism of Starmer, from the Left as well as the Right, fails to appreciate this, and the fact that it can be sensible for a Labour leader to be more risk-averse than a Tory one because the partisan conservative media has a strong influence on the broader agenda.
That said, I think Starmer has been a bit too cautious, and a more effective communicator like Blair (the most talented political operator of the last three decades whatever we think about his politics) would have gone further in establishing in the minds of the public what Labour stand for, what its priorities would be.
On a substantive level, I think there can be no doubt that a Labour government would differ significantly from the last four Tory PMs, because both its philosophical foundations and its base of support are very different. So:
- Will pursue a less antagonistic policy with regard to the EU, and will probably attempt to reduce the trading barriers caused by Brexit while not going so far as to be seen as reversing Brexit.
- Will be to the left of the Tories in economic policy: not pushing aggressively toward deregulation and tax reduction for the rich, and looking to invest more in services and infrastructure. I expect they will not go as far as I would want in that respect, both due to fear of being portrayed as another Corbyn and due to the constraints caused by the present crisis.
- They won't flirt with anti-environmental rhetoric, and will shift from the current mixture of policies that pay lip-service to climate action while undermining it, to policies that do address it but not boldly enough.
Etc. etc. I'd love to see a Labour government that is as radical as the Atlee administration that brought in the NHS and welfare state in the 1940s, with a focus on constitutional reform to protect our democracy, green investment, and strengthening cooperation with liberal democratic allies. I don't see that happening, but even having a sane government that isn't primarily accountable to hysterical voices on the libertarian and nationalist fringes would be a massive step in the right direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Having a written constitution would help IMO.
posted on 17/10/22
I do find it funny that Labour are being asked what their plans are to fix Tory fck up after fck up.
Labour need to call of vote of no confidence. If the Tories vote for the Gov, they would look even more ridiculous.
posted on 17/10/22
I hear she hates what Boris did with the flat & has an interior decorator coming round...& her time is precious
The interior decorator I mean
posted on 17/10/22
comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 19 seconds ago
I do find it funny that Labour are being asked what their plans are to fix Tory fck up after fck up.
Labour need to call of vote of no confidence. If the Tories vote for the Gov, they would look even more ridiculous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At his point, you guys just need a new election, not that it will change much but at least you guys can be sure that this is the will of the people and quietly bare it. Sadly the people can be stupid.
posted on 17/10/22
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 47 seconds ago
The best thing that could happen at this stage.
What are the next Government offering up to bring the country forward?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's standard practice in today's British politics for a party of opposition (whichever it is) to be fairly coy about its specific policy agenda in the middle of the government's term in office. Reasons for doing so are: 1) Why give the opponents extra time to develop attack lines against your policies? 2) Need to avoid using up the media coverage on policy announcements early, meaning public will have forgotten by the time the election comes along, and media won't cover in as much detail as they are old news. 3) Can be politically advantageous to use the Mourinho strategy of sitting back and waiting for your opponent to make mistakes. 4) To make credible, costed spending pledges, you need to go on the economic data of the moment, which fluctuates - so a manifesto style detailed policy platform isn't possible until the run-up to an election.
I think some of the criticism of Starmer, from the Left as well as the Right, fails to appreciate this, and the fact that it can be sensible for a Labour leader to be more risk-averse than a Tory one because the partisan conservative media has a strong influence on the broader agenda.
That said, I think Starmer has been a bit too cautious, and a more effective communicator like Blair (the most talented political operator of the last three decades whatever we think about his politics) would have gone further in establishing in the minds of the public what Labour stand for, what its priorities would be.
On a substantive level, I think there can be no doubt that a Labour government would differ significantly from the last four Tory PMs, because both its philosophical foundations and its base of support are very different. So:
- Will pursue a less antagonistic policy with regard to the EU, and will probably attempt to reduce the trading barriers caused by Brexit while not going so far as to be seen as reversing Brexit.
- Will be to the left of the Tories in economic policy: not pushing aggressively toward deregulation and tax reduction for the rich, and looking to invest more in services and infrastructure. I expect they will not go as far as I would want in that respect, both due to fear of being portrayed as another Corbyn and due to the constraints caused by the present crisis.
- They won't flirt with anti-environmental rhetoric, and will shift from the current mixture of policies that pay lip-service to climate action while undermining it, to policies that do address it but not boldly enough.
Etc. etc. I'd love to see a Labour government that is as radical as the Atlee administration that brought in the NHS and welfare state in the 1940s, with a focus on constitutional reform to protect our democracy, green investment, and strengthening cooperation with liberal democratic allies. I don't see that happening, but even having a sane government that isn't primarily accountable to hysterical voices on the libertarian and nationalist fringes would be a massive step in the right direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is all well and good RR, but for Labour to be put in power they are going to have to win over a hell of a lot of people who voted Tory last time.
Labour need to give the voters some idea of what they stand for.
Rejoining the EU may be a good starting point, if they explain it properly so that morons can understand it.
posted on 17/10/22
I do find it funny that Labour are being asked what their plans are to fix Tory fck up after fck up.
................
I would imagine it is on the mind of most sensible voters.
posted on 17/10/22
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 47 seconds ago
The best thing that could happen at this stage.
What are the next Government offering up to bring the country forward?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's standard practice in today's British politics for a party of opposition (whichever it is) to be fairly coy about its specific policy agenda in the middle of the government's term in office. Reasons for doing so are: 1) Why give the opponents extra time to develop attack lines against your policies? 2) Need to avoid using up the media coverage on policy announcements early, meaning public will have forgotten by the time the election comes along, and media won't cover in as much detail as they are old news. 3) Can be politically advantageous to use the Mourinho strategy of sitting back and waiting for your opponent to make mistakes. 4) To make credible, costed spending pledges, you need to go on the economic data of the moment, which fluctuates - so a manifesto style detailed policy platform isn't possible until the run-up to an election.
I think some of the criticism of Starmer, from the Left as well as the Right, fails to appreciate this, and the fact that it can be sensible for a Labour leader to be more risk-averse than a Tory one because the partisan conservative media has a strong influence on the broader agenda.
That said, I think Starmer has been a bit too cautious, and a more effective communicator like Blair (the most talented political operator of the last three decades whatever we think about his politics) would have gone further in establishing in the minds of the public what Labour stand for, what its priorities would be.
On a substantive level, I think there can be no doubt that a Labour government would differ significantly from the last four Tory PMs, because both its philosophical foundations and its base of support are very different. So:
- Will pursue a less antagonistic policy with regard to the EU, and will probably attempt to reduce the trading barriers caused by Brexit while not going so far as to be seen as reversing Brexit.
- Will be to the left of the Tories in economic policy: not pushing aggressively toward deregulation and tax reduction for the rich, and looking to invest more in services and infrastructure. I expect they will not go as far as I would want in that respect, both due to fear of being portrayed as another Corbyn and due to the constraints caused by the present crisis.
- They won't flirt with anti-environmental rhetoric, and will shift from the current mixture of policies that pay lip-service to climate action while undermining it, to policies that do address it but not boldly enough.
Etc. etc. I'd love to see a Labour government that is as radical as the Atlee administration that brought in the NHS and welfare state in the 1940s, with a focus on constitutional reform to protect our democracy, green investment, and strengthening cooperation with liberal democratic allies. I don't see that happening, but even having a sane government that isn't primarily accountable to hysterical voices on the libertarian and nationalist fringes would be a massive step in the right direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Having a written constitution would help IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The ancient English/British constitution has evolved over centuries. There hasnt been one instigating or revolutionary defining moment in our history that has called for a definitive written bill of rights and common laws as it has in other more recent Republics formed around the World. There has been several documents in history that our constitution evolves and shapes from such as The Doomsday Book, Magna Carta the The Glorious Revolution Bill of Rights, 1707 Acts and Treaty of Union etc etc. Be a hell of a job to define the whole Constitution on a written parchment.
Or we start again from a new beginning.
posted on 17/10/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 38 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 47 seconds ago
The best thing that could happen at this stage.
What are the next Government offering up to bring the country forward?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's standard practice in today's British politics for a party of opposition (whichever it is) to be fairly coy about its specific policy agenda in the middle of the government's term in office. Reasons for doing so are: 1) Why give the opponents extra time to develop attack lines against your policies? 2) Need to avoid using up the media coverage on policy announcements early, meaning public will have forgotten by the time the election comes along, and media won't cover in as much detail as they are old news. 3) Can be politically advantageous to use the Mourinho strategy of sitting back and waiting for your opponent to make mistakes. 4) To make credible, costed spending pledges, you need to go on the economic data of the moment, which fluctuates - so a manifesto style detailed policy platform isn't possible until the run-up to an election.
I think some of the criticism of Starmer, from the Left as well as the Right, fails to appreciate this, and the fact that it can be sensible for a Labour leader to be more risk-averse than a Tory one because the partisan conservative media has a strong influence on the broader agenda.
That said, I think Starmer has been a bit too cautious, and a more effective communicator like Blair (the most talented political operator of the last three decades whatever we think about his politics) would have gone further in establishing in the minds of the public what Labour stand for, what its priorities would be.
On a substantive level, I think there can be no doubt that a Labour government would differ significantly from the last four Tory PMs, because both its philosophical foundations and its base of support are very different. So:
- Will pursue a less antagonistic policy with regard to the EU, and will probably attempt to reduce the trading barriers caused by Brexit while not going so far as to be seen as reversing Brexit.
- Will be to the left of the Tories in economic policy: not pushing aggressively toward deregulation and tax reduction for the rich, and looking to invest more in services and infrastructure. I expect they will not go as far as I would want in that respect, both due to fear of being portrayed as another Corbyn and due to the constraints caused by the present crisis.
- They won't flirt with anti-environmental rhetoric, and will shift from the current mixture of policies that pay lip-service to climate action while undermining it, to policies that do address it but not boldly enough.
Etc. etc. I'd love to see a Labour government that is as radical as the Atlee administration that brought in the NHS and welfare state in the 1940s, with a focus on constitutional reform to protect our democracy, green investment, and strengthening cooperation with liberal democratic allies. I don't see that happening, but even having a sane government that isn't primarily accountable to hysterical voices on the libertarian and nationalist fringes would be a massive step in the right direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
An excellent post RR. Of the fact that I agree with all of it may sway my view. They are all points I have thought about, indeed written about, but less eloquently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be very much in the Tory party’s interest to have an election asap and get out of office leaving Starmer with an impossible task to turn it round
People have very short memories,in 4 years time a Tory party would be looked upon far more favourably with the media pulling apart Starmers time in office
posted on 17/10/22
comment by Paulpowersleftfoot Culer is a shiithouse 💩 (U1037)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 38 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 47 seconds ago
The best thing that could happen at this stage.
What are the next Government offering up to bring the country forward?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's standard practice in today's British politics for a party of opposition (whichever it is) to be fairly coy about its specific policy agenda in the middle of the government's term in office. Reasons for doing so are: 1) Why give the opponents extra time to develop attack lines against your policies? 2) Need to avoid using up the media coverage on policy announcements early, meaning public will have forgotten by the time the election comes along, and media won't cover in as much detail as they are old news. 3) Can be politically advantageous to use the Mourinho strategy of sitting back and waiting for your opponent to make mistakes. 4) To make credible, costed spending pledges, you need to go on the economic data of the moment, which fluctuates - so a manifesto style detailed policy platform isn't possible until the run-up to an election.
I think some of the criticism of Starmer, from the Left as well as the Right, fails to appreciate this, and the fact that it can be sensible for a Labour leader to be more risk-averse than a Tory one because the partisan conservative media has a strong influence on the broader agenda.
That said, I think Starmer has been a bit too cautious, and a more effective communicator like Blair (the most talented political operator of the last three decades whatever we think about his politics) would have gone further in establishing in the minds of the public what Labour stand for, what its priorities would be.
On a substantive level, I think there can be no doubt that a Labour government would differ significantly from the last four Tory PMs, because both its philosophical foundations and its base of support are very different. So:
- Will pursue a less antagonistic policy with regard to the EU, and will probably attempt to reduce the trading barriers caused by Brexit while not going so far as to be seen as reversing Brexit.
- Will be to the left of the Tories in economic policy: not pushing aggressively toward deregulation and tax reduction for the rich, and looking to invest more in services and infrastructure. I expect they will not go as far as I would want in that respect, both due to fear of being portrayed as another Corbyn and due to the constraints caused by the present crisis.
- They won't flirt with anti-environmental rhetoric, and will shift from the current mixture of policies that pay lip-service to climate action while undermining it, to policies that do address it but not boldly enough.
Etc. etc. I'd love to see a Labour government that is as radical as the Atlee administration that brought in the NHS and welfare state in the 1940s, with a focus on constitutional reform to protect our democracy, green investment, and strengthening cooperation with liberal democratic allies. I don't see that happening, but even having a sane government that isn't primarily accountable to hysterical voices on the libertarian and nationalist fringes would be a massive step in the right direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
An excellent post RR. Of the fact that I agree with all of it may sway my view. They are all points I have thought about, indeed written about, but less eloquently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be very much in the Tory party’s interest to have an election asap and get out of office leaving Starmer with an impossible task to turn it round
People have very short memories,in 4 years time a Tory party would be looked upon far more favourably with the media pulling apart Starmers time in office
----------------------------------------------------------------------
especially with the Tory press doing their thing every day.
posted on 17/10/22
Sadly the chances of us getting another election are pretty low. The Conservatives simply can't afford to go to the public when they're this unpopular and they have a big majority in the house.
There was a news article this morning suggestion that if the opinion polls are reflected in actual voting (I know, big if) the Boris, Rees-Mogg, Hunt and Coffey would all lose their seats. And there's a lot more Tory MPs with much smaller majorities that would almost certainly lose.
Sadly these turkeys are not going to vote for Christmas.
posted on 17/10/22
If the Tory hierarchy had decided to create an untenable situation they couldn’t have done it any better than with this Truss clown
Page 1 of 3