Snap General Election called

[Mikey Brown]

Moving on from Puja's raging prejudice, the sway in public feeling since the election seems quite alarming. I can't tell if I'm getting a real picture of how the general public feel or it's just the relentless news cycle? It feels like the bubble burst immediately for Starmer and 10+ years of conservatives destroying living standards has been completely forgiven, or at least matched, by his recent blunders. He must have been aware that the 'landslide' was built on protest votes and more desperation than conviction?

I don't know how he expected people to react to his message of "everything is shit and it looks like it will stay that way for quite a long time."

The media have gone in to absolute overdrive on immigration and the violent crimes commited by minorites. Are any sensible conversations actually being had about this? I don't really know why I'm asking, because I can't bring myself to engage in any of it. This probably just me venting before I go back to burying my head in the sand.

[Mellsblue]

I think it’s probably the fact Lab/Starmer went hard on (presumed) cash for favours/access and cronyism only to immediately go himself for cronyism and (presumed) cash for favours/access, albeit swapping wallpaper and holiday homes for clothes and, erm, holiday homes. He also went hard on Boris for not being able to administer a functioning govt and he’s already been forced to sack his chief of staff.
Take all of that with one of the findings (amongst many other interesting ones) of this - https://ukandeu.ac.uk/reports/minoritie ... opulation/ - that competence is pretty much top of people’s wishlist for a government and given that it’s been a bit of a shambolic 100 days, when after the Tory shitshow since Bozza all they had to do was not be a shambles, the unpopularity is not surprising.
It’s also that as we can all now opine on social media whenever we want we are all experts and would therefore all easily do a better job.
But I’d guess it’s mainly, as you say, that people voted Labour because they promised milk and honey without taxing the average working person and have now repeatedly said there is no milk and honey (unless you work on the railway, in a hospital or in a school).

[Puja]

I suppose I will forever have to wonder what this sentence is really trying to say: ‘It means they don't have to change, because Kemi agrees with them, and in fact they can go harder on racism and misogyny because they've already got proof that they aren't bigoted’.
To me it sounds like Tory members are racist and misogynistic but not racist and misogynistic enough to not vote for a black woman whilst at the same time being emboldened to be more racist and misogynistic by voting for her.

Okay, one last go, cause I value you company and our conversations on here and I don't particularly enjoy giving the impression I'm being a dick, which I clearly am at present.

I am not calling Tory members as a whole racist and misogynist (aside from the obvious background radiation of culture where everyone's subconsciously at least a little bit - this is the definition of being actively biased (at or above the level of "I'm not racist, but...")). I am not saying that, in order to be a Tory, you have to be racist and misogynist. I am specifically not saying All Tories Are Bigots.

The question on the table was Son of Mathonwy questioning my assumption that Badenoch would saunter to victory, by saying, "Depends on how racist and sexist the Tory members really are when faced with an actual vote." The electorate of the Tory party membership who will be voting here does skew more racist and misogynist than the rest of the UK when looked at as a statistical whole and there are definitely a not insignificant number of racists and misogynists (to varying degrees) in that electorate, so it's far from an unfair question.

I was trying to say that I didn't think it would make a huge difference to her chances, because the people who are racists and misogynists have historically shown a great ability to employ cognitive dissonance and will happily support someone from a disempowered social group that they will generally be biased against, when that person is vocal about structural prejudice not actually being real. No-one likes to feel like they're the bad guy, and it's validating to have a black person or a gay person or a woman tell you that you're right, racism/homophobia/sexism isn't a real issue, and the "liberals" are being oversensitive and "woke". There's more than a few Republican politicians in the US who get the same type of support.

I am not saying that Tory members are racist and misogynistic, I am saying that the Tory members who *are* racist and misogynistic will likely not have a problem voting for her because she is saying the things that they want to hear, while also holding Conservative policies and positions that they agree with. I am also saying that, because she is black and a woman and says those things, it will embolden the racists and misogynists, because she has made it acceptable in a way that a white man saying those things cannot.

Note also that this is not me saying that Tory members who are racist and misogynistic are voting for her *because* she is a black woman - they would be voting for her because of her policies, positions, persona, and putative reputation for competence. I am just saying that I don't think that her being a black woman will particularly prove an impediment to her getting the votes of any racists or misogynists.


On a side note, I am hoping that I have enough credit with you that you're willing to give me the benefit of the doubt that I do genuinely mean NotAllTories. I am unsure how I have ended up in your opinions that I consider everybody who holds a Conservative party membership or votes for them to be an evil fascist. There are a lot of people who I hold nothing but contempt for who do vote Conservative, and a lot of Conservative politicians in the current party are despicable human beings, and I have made jokes and flippant remarks based around my disdain for the party as a whole, especially its current iteration. However, I'm well aware that Tory doesn't equal bad person - apart from anything else, most of my family are lifelong Conservative voters - and I don't like that I've got this reputation with you, that I believe every Tory is a fascist and that I am attacking you with my posts. I'm sorry if I have upset/annoyed you and I'm hoping that my long word vomit above gives an explanation to what I was saying, rather than the worst interpretation of my words being the thing that goes forwards. I hope that it can serve as a reset to our interactions.

I also hope I don't have to type the word "misogynist" again for a very long time, cause I wrote it so often in this post that it no longer looks like a real word.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

I suppose I will forever have to wonder what this sentence is really trying to say: ‘It means they don't have to change, because Kemi agrees with them, and in fact they can go harder on racism and misogyny because they've already got proof that they aren't bigoted’.
To me it sounds like Tory members are racist and misogynistic but not racist and misogynistic enough to not vote for a black woman whilst at the same time being emboldened to be more racist and misogynistic by voting for her.

Okay, one last go, cause I value you company and our conversations on here and I don't particularly enjoy giving the impression I'm being a dick, which I clearly am at present.

I am not calling Tory members as a whole racist and misogynist (aside from the obvious background radiation of culture where everyone's subconsciously at least a little bit - this is the definition of being actively biased (at or above the level of "I'm not racist, but...")). I am not saying that, in order to be a Tory, you have to be racist and misogynist. I am specifically not saying All Tories Are Bigots.

The question on the table was Son of Mathonwy questioning my assumption that Badenoch would saunter to victory, by saying, "Depends on how racist and sexist the Tory members really are when faced with an actual vote." The electorate of the Tory party membership who will be voting here does skew more racist and misogynist than the rest of the UK when looked at as a statistical whole and there are definitely a not insignificant number of racists and misogynists (to varying degrees) in that electorate, so it's far from an unfair question.

I was trying to say that I didn't think it would make a huge difference to her chances, because the people who are racists and misogynists have historically shown a great ability to employ cognitive dissonance and will happily support someone from a disempowered social group that they will generally be biased against, when that person is vocal about structural prejudice not actually being real. No-one likes to feel like they're the bad guy, and it's validating to have a black person or a gay person or a woman tell you that you're right, racism/homophobia/sexism isn't a real issue, and the "liberals" are being oversensitive and "woke". There's more than a few Republican politicians in the US who get the same type of support.

I am not saying that Tory members are racist and misogynistic, I am saying that the Tory members who *are* racist and misogynistic will likely not have a problem voting for her because she is saying the things that they want to hear, while also holding Conservative policies and positions that they agree with. I am also saying that, because she is black and a woman and says those things, it will embolden the racists and misogynists, because she has made it acceptable in a way that a white man saying those things cannot.

Note also that this is not me saying that Tory members who are racist and misogynistic are voting for her *because* she is a black woman - they would be voting for her because of her policies, positions, persona, and putative reputation for competence. I am just saying that I don't think that her being a black woman will particularly prove an impediment to her getting the votes of any racists or misogynists.


On a side note, I am hoping that I have enough credit with you that you're willing to give me the benefit of the doubt that I do genuinely mean NotAllTories. I am unsure how I have ended up in your opinions that I consider everybody who holds a Conservative party membership or votes for them to be an evil fascist. There are a lot of people who I hold nothing but contempt for who do vote Conservative, and a lot of Conservative politicians in the current party are despicable human beings, and I have made jokes and flippant remarks based around my disdain for the party as a whole, especially its current iteration. However, I'm well aware that Tory doesn't equal bad person - apart from anything else, most of my family are lifelong Conservative voters - and I don't like that I've got this reputation with you, that I believe every Tory is a fascist and that I am attacking you with my posts. I'm sorry if I have upset/annoyed you and I'm hoping that my long word vomit above gives an explanation to what I was saying, rather than the worst interpretation of my words being the thing that goes forwards. I hope that it can serve as a reset to our interactions.

I also hope I don't have to type the word "misogynist" again for a very long time, cause I wrote it so often in this post that it no longer looks like a real word.

Puja

All fair enough but unless you feel there is a large enough subset of the membership who are racist and misogynist to affect the outcome of the leadership, which I’m arguing there isn’t and you also seem to think there isnt, then it’s a lazy argument to join in with. I think there’s a minority of people who voted for Corbyn due to them being antisemitic and consequently felt emboldened to be antisemitic but at no point did I actually say on here, or anywhere else, that his chances of being elected are dependent on that because they are a minority and it unfairly taints all you Commies with the same brush.

It’s just also so farking lazy and reductive and, ultimately, gets in the way of good reasoned debate.

I’ll also admit that I can be overly sensitive but when you’ve had incidents such as a very good friend’s wife, who I also class as a friend, tell me after a few wines that she doesn’t know how I can be a Tory as I’m a nice bloke - I explained my position on major policy and you could see the realisation that it’s possible to be nice and a Tory spread across her face - and a, not drunk, neighbour openly state as a complete non sequitur that “I like you but I don’t like your politics” - I didn’t explain my policy positions, I just now think he’s c**t - then you get bored of these pointless arguments about people of the fringe.

I don’t think you’re a dick, I enjoy debating with you and think it’s worthwhile to do it which is why I’ve pulled you up on it twice recently, even if you think it unfair. If I don’t pull you up on it it’s because I think you’re in the same camp as my neighbour.

[Puja]

All fair enough but unless you feel there is a large enough subset of the membership who are racist and misogynist to affect the outcome of the leadership, which I’m arguing there isn’t and you also seem to think there isnt, then it’s a lazy argument to join in with. I think there’s a minority of people who voted for Corbyn due to them being antisemitic and consequently felt emboldened to be antisemitic but at no point did I actually say on here, or anywhere else, that his chances of being elected are dependent on that because they are a minority and it unfairly taints all you Commies with the same brush.

It’s just also so farking lazy and reductive and, ultimately, gets in the way of good reasoned debate.

I’ll also admit that I can be overly sensitive but when you’ve had incidents such as a very good friend’s wife, who I also class as a friend, tell me after a few wines that she doesn’t know how I can be a Tory as I’m a nice bloke - I explained my position on major policy and you could see the realisation that it’s possible to be nice and a Tory spread across her face - and a, not drunk, neighbour openly state as a complete non sequitur that “I like you but I don’t like your politics” - I didn’t explain my policy positions, I just now think he’s c**t - then you get bored of these pointless arguments about people of the fringe.

I don’t think you’re a dick, I enjoy debating with you and think it’s worthwhile to do it which is why I’ve pulled you up on it twice recently, even if you think it unfair. If I don’t pull you up on it it’s because I think you’re in the same camp as my neighbour.

Thank you - that is appreciated. And I do also appreciate being called out when I fuck up cause I like to try and do better and learn when I'm wrong (as I was over the Timpson's joke).

At the risk of damaging our new-found harmony, I will say that the Conservative membership (or at least the ones likely to vote in the leadership election) does skew more reactionary as a whole. If we were just talking outright and overtly bigoted people, then I'd agree that it's (hopefully) a very small minority, but if we're including the "I'm not racist, but..." people who get angry when there are too many black people in advertisements, then I would say there's enough that it's a political force in that electorate (if hopefully still a minority).

I just also think who she is as a politician means it won't be an issue for her.

Puja

[Puja]

Moving on from Puja's raging prejudice, the sway in public feeling since the election seems quite alarming. I can't tell if I'm getting a real picture of how the general public feel or it's just the relentless news cycle? It feels like the bubble burst immediately for Starmer and 10+ years of conservatives destroying living standards has been completely forgiven, or at least matched, by his recent blunders. He must have been aware that the 'landslide' was built on protest votes and more desperation than conviction?

I don't know how he expected people to react to his message of "everything is shit and it looks like it will stay that way for quite a long time."

The media have gone in to absolute overdrive on immigration and the violent crimes commited by minorites. Are any sensible conversations actually being had about this? I don't really know why I'm asking, because I can't bring myself to engage in any of it. This probably just me venting before I go back to burying my head in the sand.

Starmer appears to have thought that winning was the end and switched off entirely. The winter fuel thing is so politically naive that it's baffling how someone previously so competent could've thought it was a good idea. It's not even as though it's going to raise any kind of money either - I can only think that he was assuming it was a political masterstroke that would allow him to continue hammering home, "Look at what the Tories have forced us to do, look at how terrible they were," and somehow forgot that he's now actually the one in charge who gets to take the blame.

Add to that Mells' points about them near instantly evaporating their own moral high ground on sleaze and corruption, followed by annihilating their claim to be a united party who could concentrate on government and wouldn't have defections, internal conflicts, or coups. It's no wonder they've tanked their approval ratings.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

All fair enough but unless you feel there is a large enough subset of the membership who are racist and misogynist to affect the outcome of the leadership, which I’m arguing there isn’t and you also seem to think there isnt, then it’s a lazy argument to join in with. I think there’s a minority of people who voted for Corbyn due to them being antisemitic and consequently felt emboldened to be antisemitic but at no point did I actually say on here, or anywhere else, that his chances of being elected are dependent on that because they are a minority and it unfairly taints all you Commies with the same brush.

It’s just also so farking lazy and reductive and, ultimately, gets in the way of good reasoned debate.

I’ll also admit that I can be overly sensitive but when you’ve had incidents such as a very good friend’s wife, who I also class as a friend, tell me after a few wines that she doesn’t know how I can be a Tory as I’m a nice bloke - I explained my position on major policy and you could see the realisation that it’s possible to be nice and a Tory spread across her face - and a, not drunk, neighbour openly state as a complete non sequitur that “I like you but I don’t like your politics” - I didn’t explain my policy positions, I just now think he’s c**t - then you get bored of these pointless arguments about people of the fringe.

I don’t think you’re a dick, I enjoy debating with you and think it’s worthwhile to do it which is why I’ve pulled you up on it twice recently, even if you think it unfair. If I don’t pull you up on it it’s because I think you’re in the same camp as my neighbour.

Thank you - that is appreciated. And I do also appreciate being called out when I fuck up cause I like to try and do better and learn when I'm wrong (as I was over the Timpson's joke).

At the risk of damaging our new-found harmony, I will say that the Conservative membership (or at least the ones likely to vote in the leadership election) does skew more reactionary as a whole. If we were just talking outright and overtly bigoted people, then I'd agree that it's (hopefully) a very small minority, but if we're including the "I'm not racist, but..." people who get angry when there are too many black people in advertisements, then I would say there's enough that it's a political force in that electorate (if hopefully still a minority).

I just also think who she is as a politician means it won't be an issue for her.

Puja

Completely agree that the current Tory membership is much further right than the pop as a whole. It’s also quite a bit further right than the Cameron years - as Labour became on the left leading up to and during the Corbyn leadership years - and I saw it moving that way when having the joy of making the intro calls to new members of my local association. When told that there was no vetting procedure to keep out the dodgy ones I resigned as chair and didn’t renew my membership when it lapsed. All that said, I still believe, having dipped my toe back in recently, it’s a small % (based on members local to me only obvs but absent of any hard data it’s the best we’ll get, unless anyone has any hard data in which case please point me in the right direction) and was actually surprised that a person who I clashed with repeatedly years ago over Brexit had been kicked out for racist posts on social media. You’ve also got to take into account a lot of the more right wing members will have moved to Reform, albeit they may still have the right to vote if their membership hasn’t lapsed.
Long story short, imo the racist and misogynists aren’t really a big enough factor to swing anything in the leadership contest so I’d argue that if people don’t stop with the lazy tropes it will only stifle important/useful debate.

[Mellsblue]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg ... 73b30eee94


Timpson’s finger prints all over this.
I did lol that we’re looking towards the US for less punitive ideas. The general view of US prisons is chain gangs and electric chairs.

[Puja]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg ... 73b30eee94


Timpson’s finger prints all over this.
I did lol that we’re looking towards the US for less punitive ideas. The general view of US prisons is chain gangs and electric chairs.

Indeed - Texas is not the first place I'd think of when looking for plans on justice reform! Still, all good ideas are worth stealing.

Seems like it's missing the obvious, but politically difficult answer, to reducing prison population - ending the war on drugs and treating it as a health and social issue rather than a criminal one.

Puja

[Zhivago]

Starmer is one of those people who has been promoted above his competency. It happens from time to time across all organisations. Mostly it happens due to factors outside of the control of the individual who benefits from the circumstances, but they don't recognise that their success strongly influenced by chance and instead believe in their own inimitable agency.

In the specific case of Starmer, he had benefited from predecessors who made him look good in comparison. First Corbyn and then the Tory dregs. His election result was a very low vote share that would have never granted him power in normal circumstances, yet he clearly believes that he himself has achieved a landslide victory rather than one falling into his hands.

As seen from his attitude towards the gifts, one major flaw he has is a sense of entitlement and lack of humility. Along with his sense of entitlement is an undercurrent of hypocrisy and willingness to engage in dishonesty in order to get what he wants. Essentially a belief that the ends justify the means. This was clear from the beginning when he lied his way to the Labour leadership. He spins this behaviour as ruthlessness and is evidently proud of this 'quality' of his. It is however a great moral flaw that will be his undoing.

[Banquo]

Starmer is one of those people who has been promoted above his competency. It happens from time to time across all organisations. Mostly it happens due to factors outside of the control of the individual who benefits from the circumstances, but they don't recognise that their success strongly influenced by chance and instead believe in their own inimitable agency.

In the specific case of Starmer, he had benefited from predecessors who made him look good in comparison. First Corbyn and then the Tory dregs. His election result was a very low vote share that would have never granted him power in normal circumstances, yet he clearly believes that he himself has achieved a landslide victory rather than one falling into his hands.

As seen from his attitude towards the gifts, one major flaw he has is a sense of entitlement and lack of humility. Along with his sense of entitlement is an undercurrent of hypocrisy and willingness to engage in dishonesty in order to get what he wants. Essentially a belief that the ends justify the means. This was clear from the beginning when he lied his way to the Labour leadership. He spins this behaviour as ruthlessness and is evidently proud of this 'quality' of his. It is however a great moral flaw that will be his undoing.

given the morality'r'us pitch, its hard to swallow I'd think

[Sandydragon]

All fair enough but unless you feel there is a large enough subset of the membership who are racist and misogynist to affect the outcome of the leadership, which I’m arguing there isn’t and you also seem to think there isnt, then it’s a lazy argument to join in with. I think there’s a minority of people who voted for Corbyn due to them being antisemitic and consequently felt emboldened to be antisemitic but at no point did I actually say on here, or anywhere else, that his chances of being elected are dependent on that because they are a minority and it unfairly taints all you Commies with the same brush.

It’s just also so farking lazy and reductive and, ultimately, gets in the way of good reasoned debate.

I’ll also admit that I can be overly sensitive but when you’ve had incidents such as a very good friend’s wife, who I also class as a friend, tell me after a few wines that she doesn’t know how I can be a Tory as I’m a nice bloke - I explained my position on major policy and you could see the realisation that it’s possible to be nice and a Tory spread across her face - and a, not drunk, neighbour openly state as a complete non sequitur that “I like you but I don’t like your politics” - I didn’t explain my policy positions, I just now think he’s c**t - then you get bored of these pointless arguments about people of the fringe.

I don’t think you’re a dick, I enjoy debating with you and think it’s worthwhile to do it which is why I’ve pulled you up on it twice recently, even if you think it unfair. If I don’t pull you up on it it’s because I think you’re in the same camp as my neighbour.

Thank you - that is appreciated. And I do also appreciate being called out when I fuck up cause I like to try and do better and learn when I'm wrong (as I was over the Timpson's joke).

At the risk of damaging our new-found harmony, I will say that the Conservative membership (or at least the ones likely to vote in the leadership election) does skew more reactionary as a whole. If we were just talking outright and overtly bigoted people, then I'd agree that it's (hopefully) a very small minority, but if we're including the "I'm not racist, but..." people who get angry when there are too many black people in advertisements, then I would say there's enough that it's a political force in that electorate (if hopefully still a minority).

I just also think who she is as a politician means it won't be an issue for her.

Puja

Completely agree that the current Tory membership is much further right than the pop as a whole. It’s also quite a bit further right than the Cameron years - as Labour became on the left leading up to and during the Corbyn leadership years - and I saw it moving that way when having the joy of making the intro calls to new members of my local association. When told that there was no vetting procedure to keep out the dodgy ones I resigned as chair and didn’t renew my membership when it lapsed. All that said, I still believe, having dipped my toe back in recently, it’s a small % (based on members local to me only obvs but absent of any hard data it’s the best we’ll get, unless anyone has any hard data in which case please point me in the right direction) and was actually surprised that a person who I clashed with repeatedly years ago over Brexit had been kicked out for racist posts on social media. You’ve also got to take into account a lot of the more right wing members will have moved to Reform, albeit they may still have the right to vote if their membership hasn’t lapsed.
Long story short, imo the racist and misogynists aren’t really a big enough factor to swing anything in the leadership contest so I’d argue that if people don’t stop with the lazy tropes it will only stifle important/useful debate.

From my own experience the bigots are a small l but loud minority. There was concern over immigration numbers, that by itself isn’t bigoted. Many members are refectory reasonable people who are probably of above average age and don’t really do political ideology per se.

But we live in an age of binary and noise extremes. Much easier to label Tories as racism scum etc than actually have a grown up discussion. The ability to compromise appears to be limited.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Starmer is one of those people who has been promoted above his competency. It happens from time to time across all organisations. Mostly it happens due to factors outside of the control of the individual who benefits from the circumstances, but they don't recognise that their success strongly influenced by chance and instead believe in their own inimitable agency.

In the specific case of Starmer, he had benefited from predecessors who made him look good in comparison. First Corbyn and then the Tory dregs. His election result was a very low vote share that would have never granted him power in normal circumstances, yet he clearly believes that he himself has achieved a landslide victory rather than one falling into his hands.

As seen from his attitude towards the gifts, one major flaw he has is a sense of entitlement and lack of humility. Along with his sense of entitlement is an undercurrent of hypocrisy and willingness to engage in dishonesty in order to get what he wants. Essentially a belief that the ends justify the means. This was clear from the beginning when he lied his way to the Labour leadership. He spins this behaviour as ruthlessness and is evidently proud of this 'quality' of his. It is however a great moral flaw that will be his undoing.

He seems to be fueled by personal ambition and nothing else. He has no ideas, not a clue what to do now he's in charge other than to manage the status quo. Unfortunately he was elected to change things, not (just) manage things. Farage will decide who wins next time.

[Son of Mathonwy]

FFS the NHS is not safe in Streeting's hands.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... h-ministry

[Puja]

FFS the NHS is not safe in Streeting's hands.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... h-ministry

"But the Conservatives criticised the move as “jobs for the boys” and said it showed that Labour view government business as “a gravy train for your mates”."

W O W. They're probably not wrong, but wow. The gall on them to be offering those kind of critiques after the last few years.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

FFS the NHS is not safe in Streeting's hands.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... h-ministry

"But the Conservatives criticised the move as “jobs for the boys” and said it showed that Labour view government business as “a gravy train for your mates”."

W O W. They're probably not wrong, but wow. The gall on them to be offering those kind of critiques after the last few years.

Puja

Yeah. Obviously the NHS is even less safe in the hands of the Tories.

[Sandydragon]

Starmer is one of those people who has been promoted above his competency. It happens from time to time across all organisations. Mostly it happens due to factors outside of the control of the individual who benefits from the circumstances, but they don't recognise that their success strongly influenced by chance and instead believe in their own inimitable agency.

In the specific case of Starmer, he had benefited from predecessors who made him look good in comparison. First Corbyn and then the Tory dregs. His election result was a very low vote share that would have never granted him power in normal circumstances, yet he clearly believes that he himself has achieved a landslide victory rather than one falling into his hands.

As seen from his attitude towards the gifts, one major flaw he has is a sense of entitlement and lack of humility. Along with his sense of entitlement is an undercurrent of hypocrisy and willingness to engage in dishonesty in order to get what he wants. Essentially a belief that the ends justify the means. This was clear from the beginning when he lied his way to the Labour leadership. He spins this behaviour as ruthlessness and is evidently proud of this 'quality' of his. It is however a great moral flaw that will be his undoing.

He seems to be fueled by personal ambition and nothing else. He has no ideas, not a clue what to do now he's in charge other than to manage the status quo. Unfortunately he was elected to change things, not (just) manage things. Farage will decide who wins next time.

He has played the first 100 days really badly. Waiting until the actual budget has been a mistake, the policy announcements this far have been reasonable enough but none have really landed with a bang. Plus the idea of cabinet members breaking cover this early and arguing against the treasury in public is not a good one.

The budget needs to sent a clear message and direction of travel. Most government departments are facing very significant cuts to their operational budgets which is causing a lot of alarm, following years of austerity, even if wages are being increased a little.

[Sandydragon]

FFS the NHS is not safe in Streeting's hands.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... h-ministry

"But the Conservatives criticised the move as “jobs for the boys” and said it showed that Labour view government business as “a gravy train for your mates”."

W O W. They're probably not wrong, but wow. The gall on them to be offering those kind of critiques after the last few years.

Puja

Yeah. Obviously the NHS is even less safe in the hands of the Tories.

The NHS needs a proper review and reform. There are ways to bring in private investment without turning this into America. Outcomes are currently not good for patients in many areas and that should be the focus, not how the money is provided.

[Son of Mathonwy]

"But the Conservatives criticised the move as “jobs for the boys” and said it showed that Labour view government business as “a gravy train for your mates”."

W O W. They're probably not wrong, but wow. The gall on them to be offering those kind of critiques after the last few years.

Puja

Yeah. Obviously the NHS is even less safe in the hands of the Tories.

The NHS needs a proper review and reform. There are ways to bring in private investment without turning this into America. Outcomes are currently not good for patients in many areas and that should be the focus, not how the money is provided.

Let's not call for reform without knowing what kind of reform that is. I'd prefer gradual improvement over misguided reform.

If the private sector is involved it needs to have no input on strategy because it will always be guided by profit maximisation.

If it is to be involved, the costs need to be properly balanced against the benefits. Is it genuinely cheaper than doing in-house? This is fine for catering and cleaning - these are not medical skills. But private medicine in competition with the NHS uses the same doctors, trained at great expense by the NHS, creating a scarcity of those same doctors in the NHS and pushing up wage demands. Subcontracting medical work can also de-skill the NHS, which is costly in the long run, leading to dependence on the private sector which can then ramp up the price. There should be no assumption that the private sector is more efficient, there's no evidence for it. If an area of the NHS is not working optimally, that can be solved by reorganization. Bring the private sector in and there are a lot of new costs, primarily paying shareholders but also all the overheads of running a business, personnel, accounting etc.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Starmer is one of those people who has been promoted above his competency. It happens from time to time across all organisations. Mostly it happens due to factors outside of the control of the individual who benefits from the circumstances, but they don't recognise that their success strongly influenced by chance and instead believe in their own inimitable agency.

In the specific case of Starmer, he had benefited from predecessors who made him look good in comparison. First Corbyn and then the Tory dregs. His election result was a very low vote share that would have never granted him power in normal circumstances, yet he clearly believes that he himself has achieved a landslide victory rather than one falling into his hands.

As seen from his attitude towards the gifts, one major flaw he has is a sense of entitlement and lack of humility. Along with his sense of entitlement is an undercurrent of hypocrisy and willingness to engage in dishonesty in order to get what he wants. Essentially a belief that the ends justify the means. This was clear from the beginning when he lied his way to the Labour leadership. He spins this behaviour as ruthlessness and is evidently proud of this 'quality' of his. It is however a great moral flaw that will be his undoing.

He seems to be fueled by personal ambition and nothing else. He has no ideas, not a clue what to do now he's in charge other than to manage the status quo. Unfortunately he was elected to change things, not (just) manage things. Farage will decide who wins next time.

He has played the first 100 days really badly. Waiting until the actual budget has been a mistake, the policy announcements this far have been reasonable enough but none have really landed with a bang. Plus the idea of cabinet members breaking cover this early and arguing against the treasury in public is not a good one.

The budget needs to sent a clear message and direction of travel. Most government departments are facing very significant cuts to their operational budgets which is causing a lot of alarm, following years of austerity, even if wages are being increased a little.

Despite what Reeves says, we're still in austerity and won't get out till spending increases (quite significantly in some areas).

Deeply unimpressed as I am with 'the new changed Labour Party' I have to wait till the budget before I can completely give up on them. That will show us what they really stand for. Obviously things don't look good, with the 2-child limit and the winter allowance thing. Also, I can't help thinking if they really had some game-changing plans for the economy, they'd have had the budget by now.

[Sandydragon]

Yeah. Obviously the NHS is even less safe in the hands of the Tories.

The NHS needs a proper review and reform. There are ways to bring in private investment without turning this into America. Outcomes are currently not good for patients in many areas and that should be the focus, not how the money is provided.

Let's not call for reform without knowing what kind of reform that is. I'd prefer gradual improvement over misguided reform.

If the private sector is involved it needs to have no input on strategy because it will always be guided by profit maximisation.

If it is to be involved, the costs need to be properly balanced against the benefits. Is it genuinely cheaper than doing in-house? This is fine for catering and cleaning - these are not medical skills. But private medicine in competition with the NHS uses the same doctors, trained at great expense by the NHS, creating a scarcity of those same doctors in the NHS and pushing up wage demands. Subcontracting medical work can also de-skill the NHS, which is costly in the long run, leading to dependence on the private sector which can then ramp up the price. There should be no assumption that the private sector is more efficient, there's no evidence for it. If an area of the NHS is not working optimally, that can be solved by reorganization. Bring the private sector in and there are a lot of new costs, primarily paying shareholders but also all the overheads of running a business, personnel, accounting etc.

To be fair, that's why I put review and reform. There are many obvious areas for improvement, but we need some kind of plan first. Hopefully the focus is on patient outcomes, not ideology and we must sort out the funding model, potentially looking to European neighbours for inspiration.

[Mellsblue]

There are some brilliant ideas on the public consultation page. One of my favourites is from a certain Dr H. Shipman.

[Sandydragon]

There are some brilliant ideas on the public consultation page. One of my favourites is from a certain Dr H. Shipman.

This is from the great British public who brought you Boaty McBoatface. Public consultation always seems a good idea until the public actually respond

[Son of Mathonwy]

Reeves' plans to borrow more for investment look promising*. And clearly the markets are pretty calm about it. Sure yields went up - there would have to be a knee-jerk reaction upwards to this announcement - but +0.06% is just a murmur.

* but we shall see what she will actually spend it on . . .

[Banquo]

Reeves' plans to borrow more for investment look promising*. And clearly the markets are pretty calm about it. Sure yields went up - there would have to be a knee-jerk reaction upwards to this announcement - but +0.06% is just a murmur.

* but we shall see what she will actually spend it on . . .

Isn't it PFI mk 2, but with a different p? Lets hope the governance is substantially better. As you say, its the what that matters....