Snap General Election called - The new UK Politics thread

[Puja]

In their ongoing effort to ape Reform UK, Labour are (probably) breaching international law by effectively barring
citizenship forever from those who have been granted asylum after arriving illegally here.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... us-journey

Will this just get overturned by the courts? Is this just for the press? Is Cooper just evil?

I don't actually know what they're hoping to gain from this? They can't appeal to Reform's voters better than Reform can and by trying to, they are accepting the premise of the debate and fighting on grounds that Reform have prepared and already landmined. Surely it is better to march to the best of your own drum, rather than attempting to march better than the drummer to the drummer's beat? Would they not be better making the public case for being equitable, for sensible immigration and asylum, for foreign aid, for benefits and the social safety net? =

The British populace aren't idiots - if Labour stand up and make the case for the good things about being decent, then they could be understood and people could be won over to a humane point of view. If, however, Labour continue accepting the premise that it is terrible and a disgrace and that Something Must Be Done, then there's only one point of view in the public eye, one form of information to the populace at large, and that will be that Reform is right.

And if that's where the Overton Window moves to, why do they think people will vote for Not Quite Reform Wearing A Red Rosette, instead of original flavour?

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

These days if you say you're English you'll be arrested and thrown in jail.

[Son of Mathonwy]

In their ongoing effort to ape Reform UK, Labour are (probably) breaching international law by effectively barring
citizenship forever from those who have been granted asylum after arriving illegally here.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... us-journey

Will this just get overturned by the courts? Is this just for the press? Is Cooper just evil?

I don't actually know what they're hoping to gain from this? They can't appeal to Reform's voters better than Reform can and by trying to, they are accepting the premise of the debate and fighting on grounds that Reform have prepared and already landmined. Surely it is better to march to the best of your own drum, rather than attempting to march better than the drummer to the drummer's beat? Would they not be better making the public case for being equitable, for sensible immigration and asylum, for foreign aid, for benefits and the social safety net? =

The British populace aren't idiots - if Labour stand up and make the case for the good things about being decent, then they could be understood and people could be won over to a humane point of view. If, however, Labour continue accepting the premise that it is terrible and a disgrace and that Something Must Be Done, then there's only one point of view in the public eye, one form of information to the populace at large, and that will be that Reform is right.

And if that's where the Overton Window moves to, why do they think people will vote for Not Quite Reform Wearing A Red Rosette, instead of original flavour?

Puja

Totally agree. This would be my way of approaching this and several other difficult issues in politics. A few years ago I hoped that Starmer would take that approach. I was wrong (Starmer lied). So now we only get this kind of talk from the Greens and Corbyn (et al), although on immigration I've not heard anyone take this approach.

Farage laughed his little head off when asked about Labour's immigration policies this week.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Vance tells Europe to listen to their voters and give them more far right politics. No need, Starmer is already doing his best to copy Farage, but thanks for the concern JD, you say it so nicely.

[Which Tyler]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/ ... ne-kellogg

Starmer to join Macron-led European crisis summit on Trump’s Ukraine plan

French president calls for urgent talks in Paris amid fears US leader is sidelining allies

The French president, Emmanuel Macron, was on Saturday night seeking to convene an emergency meeting of European leaders, including the UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, as concerns grew over Donald Trump’s attempts to seize control of the Ukraine peace process.

Speaking at the Munich security conference, Poland’s foreign minister, Radosław Sikorski, said he was “very glad that President Macron has called our leaders to Paris” to discuss “in a very serious fashion” the challenges posed by Trump.

...

ARTICLE CONTINUES

[Son of Mathonwy]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/ ... ne-kellogg

Starmer to join Macron-led European crisis summit on Trump’s Ukraine plan

French president calls for urgent talks in Paris amid fears US leader is sidelining allies

The French president, Emmanuel Macron, was on Saturday night seeking to convene an emergency meeting of European leaders, including the UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, as concerns grew over Donald Trump’s attempts to seize control of the Ukraine peace process.

Speaking at the Munich security conference, Poland’s foreign minister, Radosław Sikorski, said he was “very glad that President Macron has called our leaders to Paris” to discuss “in a very serious fashion” the challenges posed by Trump.

...

ARTICLE CONTINUES

Good. Let's coordinate as much as possible, now the US are out for themselves (and Russia).

Not sure a European army is realistic but we should get our militaries set up so they can work together, with as much interchangeability as possible.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Olaf Scholz's failure is a preview of what will happen to our own centre-left* leader if he fails to make life better for the people. Although in Starmer's case the weakness of the Tories might see the far right win here.


* okay that's a bit of a stretch. Centre . . . centre-right?

[Sandydragon]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/ ... ne-kellogg

Starmer to join Macron-led European crisis summit on Trump’s Ukraine plan

French president calls for urgent talks in Paris amid fears US leader is sidelining allies

The French president, Emmanuel Macron, was on Saturday night seeking to convene an emergency meeting of European leaders, including the UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, as concerns grew over Donald Trump’s attempts to seize control of the Ukraine peace process.

Speaking at the Munich security conference, Poland’s foreign minister, Radosław Sikorski, said he was “very glad that President Macron has called our leaders to Paris” to discuss “in a very serious fashion” the challenges posed by Trump.

...

ARTICLE CONTINUES

Good. Let's coordinate as much as possible, now the US are out for themselves (and Russia).

Not sure a European army is realistic but we should get our militaries set up so they can work together, with as much interchangeability as possible.

Those WU countries in NATO are pretty much there on the coordination. Yes there will be key people to replace but it’s possible. The hardest part will be the replacement of key capabilities that the Americans bring

[Son of Mathonwy]

In their ongoing effort to ape Reform UK, Labour are (probably) breaching international law by effectively barring
citizenship forever from those who have been granted asylum after arriving illegally here.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... us-journey

Will this just get overturned by the courts? Is this just for the press? Is Cooper just evil?

I don't actually know what they're hoping to gain from this? They can't appeal to Reform's voters better than Reform can and by trying to, they are accepting the premise of the debate and fighting on grounds that Reform have prepared and already landmined. Surely it is better to march to the best of your own drum, rather than attempting to march better than the drummer to the drummer's beat? Would they not be better making the public case for being equitable, for sensible immigration and asylum, for foreign aid, for benefits and the social safety net? =

The British populace aren't idiots - if Labour stand up and make the case for the good things about being decent, then they could be understood and people could be won over to a humane point of view. If, however, Labour continue accepting the premise that it is terrible and a disgrace and that Something Must Be Done, then there's only one point of view in the public eye, one form of information to the populace at large, and that will be that Reform is right.

And if that's where the Overton Window moves to, why do they think people will vote for Not Quite Reform Wearing A Red Rosette, instead of original flavour?

Puja

Totally agree. This would be my way of approaching this and several other difficult issues in politics. A few years ago I hoped that Starmer would take that approach. I was wrong (Starmer lied). So now we only get this kind of talk from the Greens and Corbyn (et al), although on immigration I've not heard anyone take this approach.

Farage laughed his little head off when asked about Labour's immigration policies this week.

Farage now clearly ahead in the polls. When will it filter through to what passes for brains in Starmer's advisors that aping the far right empower them? I know Starmer is a conviction-free zone, so in theory could do the right thing (eventually, after eliminating all other options) but more likely he'll doggedly continue to chase the ReformUK vote for a few more years, when it'll be far too late to rescue things with a change of direction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... l_election

[Son of Mathonwy]

Starmer with Trump was pretty sickening to watch. World-class toadying.

However, he didn't have much choice. A certain level of bootlicking was forced on him because of the dangerous level of dependence on the US previous governments have allowed. Given the hand he was dealt, he played it pretty well.

[Sandydragon]

Starmer with Trump was pretty sickening to watch. World-class toadying.

However, he didn't have much choice. A certain level of bootlicking was forced on him because of the dangerous level of dependence on the US previous governments have allowed. Given the hand he was dealt, he played it pretty well.

As good as can be expected. If we are going to deploy troops to keep the peace (assuming that can even happen) then we need an American backstop. That means shaking hands and washing them afterwards, whilst checking you still have your watch.

[Which Tyler]

Can we withdraw the state visit invitation?
"He can come when he's ready for an alliance"

[Son of Mathonwy]

Can we withdraw the state visit invitation?
"He can come when he's ready for an alliance"

I don't normally feel sorry for Charles III but this state visit almost gets me there.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Labour's latest way to raise money. Tax the wealthy? Nah, take it from the disabled:

https://www.itv.com/news/2025-03-07/gov ... s-shake-up

This is not the Labour Parry. This is Red Tory. And they're handing the country to Farage.

The only hope for the UK now is for Starmer to have a sudden disabling illness.

[Banquo]

Labour's latest way to raise money. Tax the wealthy? Nah, take it from the disabled:

https://www.itv.com/news/2025-03-07/gov ... s-shake-up

This is not the Labour Parry. This is Red Tory. And they're handing the country to Farage.

The only hope for the UK now is for Starmer to have a sudden disabling illness.

The clear issue is there is no strategy here, that there was no plan. He/they are just playing whack a mole.


For every sensible thing they do, there is something just odd for a Labour govt and odd for looking for growth which seemed to be their only get out of jail aspiration

[Puja]

Labour's latest way to raise money. Tax the wealthy? Nah, take it from the disabled:

https://www.itv.com/news/2025-03-07/gov ... s-shake-up

This is not the Labour Parry. This is Red Tory. And they're handing the country to Farage.

The only hope for the UK now is for Starmer to have a sudden disabling illness.

According to the government's own statistics, there were zero (0) cases of fraud associated with PIP in 2024. There is no fat to be cut there, no waste to be found, nothing but cutting the already below-poverty-levels of support that we expect disabled people to survive on. This is abhorrent.

Even apart from the ethics of it, this is the same identical economic policy of austerity and cutting to growth that caused stagnation and decay for 14 years of the Conservatives. It didn't fail because the Tories didn't do it well enough, it failed because it's a fucking failure of an economic theory. I understand being an adherent to an economic belief, but how thick must you be to continue battering your head against the brick wall that is reality telling you that it doesn't actually work in the real world?!

And, actually, let's go back to ethics for a moment, cause Starmer's whole electoral programme was about "Vote for Change". Is this change, Keir? Cutting aid budgets, demonising immigrants and benefits claimants, claiming public agencies and the NHS must slash budgets to "cut waste" and "balance the books"? Is this fucking change?

Gods below and everburning, he hasn't even changed the corruption and scandals about favours for party donors.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Labour's latest way to raise money. Tax the wealthy? Nah, take it from the disabled:

https://www.itv.com/news/2025-03-07/gov ... s-shake-up

This is not the Labour Party. This is Red Tory. And they're handing the country to Farage.

The only hope for the UK now is for Starmer to have a sudden disabling illness.

According to the government's own statistics, there were zero (0) cases of fraud associated with PIP in 2024. There is no fat to be cut there, no waste to be found, nothing but cutting the already below-poverty-levels of support that we expect disabled people to survive on. This is abhorrent.

Even apart from the ethics of it, this is the same identical economic policy of austerity and cutting to growth that caused stagnation and decay for 14 years of the Conservatives. It didn't fail because the Tories didn't do it well enough, it failed because it's a fucking failure of an economic theory. I understand being an adherent to an economic belief, but how thick must you be to continue battering your head against the brick wall that is reality telling you that it doesn't actually work in the real world?!

And, actually, let's go back to ethics for a moment, cause Starmer's whole electoral programme was about "Vote for Change". Is this change, Keir? Cutting aid budgets, demonising immigrants and benefits claimants, claiming public agencies and the NHS must slash budgets to "cut waste" and "balance the books"? Is this fucking change?

Gods below and everburning, he hasn't even changed the corruption and scandals about favours for party donors.

Puja

Ethically, logically, any way you look at it, it makes no sense. It's just the best that a centrist manager with zero imagination and zero empathy can come up with. Not to worry though, Starmer only took a flyer at becoming PM. This is all a bonus to him. What he will make sure of is to line up a nice job for himself afterwards. Head of NATO? COO of the Tony Blair Institute? Head of the Vladimir Putin Centre for Democratic Studies? No matter, as long as the money and status accrues to him, he'll leave behind the shattered remnants of UK democracy (and the Labour Party ) without a thought.

[Banquo]

Labour's latest way to raise money. Tax the wealthy? Nah, take it from the disabled:

https://www.itv.com/news/2025-03-07/gov ... s-shake-up

This is not the Labour Party. This is Red Tory. And they're handing the country to Farage.

The only hope for the UK now is for Starmer to have a sudden disabling illness.

According to the government's own statistics, there were zero (0) cases of fraud associated with PIP in 2024. There is no fat to be cut there, no waste to be found, nothing but cutting the already below-poverty-levels of support that we expect disabled people to survive on. This is abhorrent.

Even apart from the ethics of it, this is the same identical economic policy of austerity and cutting to growth that caused stagnation and decay for 14 years of the Conservatives. It didn't fail because the Tories didn't do it well enough, it failed because it's a fucking failure of an economic theory. I understand being an adherent to an economic belief, but how thick must you be to continue battering your head against the brick wall that is reality telling you that it doesn't actually work in the real world?!

And, actually, let's go back to ethics for a moment, cause Starmer's whole electoral programme was about "Vote for Change". Is this change, Keir? Cutting aid budgets, demonising immigrants and benefits claimants, claiming public agencies and the NHS must slash budgets to "cut waste" and "balance the books"? Is this fucking change?

Gods below and everburning, he hasn't even changed the corruption and scandals about favours for party donors.

Puja

Ethically, logically, any way you look at it, it makes no sense. It's just the best that a centrist manager with zero imagination and zero empathy can come up with. Not to worry though, Starmer only took a flyer at becoming PM. This is all a bonus to him. What he will make sure of is to line up a nice job for himself afterwards. Head of NATO? COO of the Tony Blair Institute? Head of the Vladimir Putin Centre for Democratic Studies? No matter, as long as the money and status accrues to him, he'll leave behind the shattered remnants of UK democracy (and the Labour Party ) without a thought.

you can't seriously think he's doing this for the money or some sort of post PM mega earnings??? Whatever you say about him, he's took the leadership of the Labour Party very seriously, and tilted at big windmills; the massive failure has been not really having any beliefs, therefore vision, therefore plan. Status maybe.

[Son of Mathonwy]

According to the government's own statistics, there were zero (0) cases of fraud associated with PIP in 2024. There is no fat to be cut there, no waste to be found, nothing but cutting the already below-poverty-levels of support that we expect disabled people to survive on. This is abhorrent.

Even apart from the ethics of it, this is the same identical economic policy of austerity and cutting to growth that caused stagnation and decay for 14 years of the Conservatives. It didn't fail because the Tories didn't do it well enough, it failed because it's a fucking failure of an economic theory. I understand being an adherent to an economic belief, but how thick must you be to continue battering your head against the brick wall that is reality telling you that it doesn't actually work in the real world?!

And, actually, let's go back to ethics for a moment, cause Starmer's whole electoral programme was about "Vote for Change". Is this change, Keir? Cutting aid budgets, demonising immigrants and benefits claimants, claiming public agencies and the NHS must slash budgets to "cut waste" and "balance the books"? Is this fucking change?

Gods below and everburning, he hasn't even changed the corruption and scandals about favours for party donors.

Puja

Ethically, logically, any way you look at it, it makes no sense. It's just the best that a centrist manager with zero imagination and zero empathy can come up with. Not to worry though, Starmer only took a flyer at becoming PM. This is all a bonus to him. What he will make sure of is to line up a nice job for himself afterwards. Head of NATO? COO of the Tony Blair Institute? Head of the Vladimir Putin Centre for Democratic Studies? No matter, as long as the money and status accrues to him, he'll leave behind the shattered remnants of UK democracy (and the Labour Party ) without a thought.

you can't seriously think he's doing this for the money or some sort of post PM mega earnings??? Whatever you say about him, he's took the leadership of the Labour Party very seriously, and tilted at big windmills; the massive failure has been not really having any beliefs, therefore vision, therefore plan. Status maybe.

Did I say that?

I'm not saying he tried to be PM in order to get the next thing. But now that it looks like a dumpster fire he'll be looking to the next thing and making sure that happens, no matter the consequences.

I'm not sure how you can say he took the Labour leadership very seriously and yet, later in the same sentence, that he had no plan. Seems like a contradiction.

[Banquo]

Ethically, logically, any way you look at it, it makes no sense. It's just the best that a centrist manager with zero imagination and zero empathy can come up with. Not to worry though, Starmer only took a flyer at becoming PM. This is all a bonus to him. What he will make sure of is to line up a nice job for himself afterwards. Head of NATO? COO of the Tony Blair Institute? Head of the Vladimir Putin Centre for Democratic Studies? No matter, as long as the money and status accrues to him, he'll leave behind the shattered remnants of UK democracy (and the Labour Party ) without a thought.

you can't seriously think he's doing this for the money or some sort of post PM mega earnings??? Whatever you say about him, he's took the leadership of the Labour Party very seriously, and tilted at big windmills; the massive failure has been not really having any beliefs, therefore vision, therefore plan. Status maybe.

Did I say that?

I'm not saying he tried to be PM in order to get the next thing. But now that it looks like a dumpster fire he'll be looking to the next thing and making sure that happens, no matter the consequences.

I'm not sure how you can say he took the Labour leadership very seriously and yet, later in the same sentence, that he had no plan. Seems like a contradiction.

No matter, as long as the money and status accrues to him,...is what you said. Apologies for misconstruing what you intended.

And he had and executed a plan to be labour leader, and then PM. He just didn't have one for when the latter happened.

[Puja]

According to the government's own statistics, there were zero (0) cases of fraud associated with PIP in 2024. There is no fat to be cut there, no waste to be found, nothing but cutting the already below-poverty-levels of support that we expect disabled people to survive on. This is abhorrent.

Even apart from the ethics of it, this is the same identical economic policy of austerity and cutting to growth that caused stagnation and decay for 14 years of the Conservatives. It didn't fail because the Tories didn't do it well enough, it failed because it's a fucking failure of an economic theory. I understand being an adherent to an economic belief, but how thick must you be to continue battering your head against the brick wall that is reality telling you that it doesn't actually work in the real world?!

And, actually, let's go back to ethics for a moment, cause Starmer's whole electoral programme was about "Vote for Change". Is this change, Keir? Cutting aid budgets, demonising immigrants and benefits claimants, claiming public agencies and the NHS must slash budgets to "cut waste" and "balance the books"? Is this fucking change?

Gods below and everburning, he hasn't even changed the corruption and scandals about favours for party donors.

Puja

Ethically, logically, any way you look at it, it makes no sense. It's just the best that a centrist manager with zero imagination and zero empathy can come up with. Not to worry though, Starmer only took a flyer at becoming PM. This is all a bonus to him. What he will make sure of is to line up a nice job for himself afterwards. Head of NATO? COO of the Tony Blair Institute? Head of the Vladimir Putin Centre for Democratic Studies? No matter, as long as the money and status accrues to him, he'll leave behind the shattered remnants of UK democracy (and the Labour Party ) without a thought.

you can't seriously think he's doing this for the money or some sort of post PM mega earnings??? Whatever you say about him, he's took the leadership of the Labour Party very seriously, and tilted at big windmills; the massive failure has been not really having any beliefs, therefore vision, therefore plan. Status maybe.

I wouldn't accuse him of being avaricious, but I would say he's a person who has executed a campaign for the highest post in British politics simply in order to have it. He has said, and done, anything and everything, in order to run the country and it doesn't appear to be because he has any desires or beliefs that he wants to enact. He just wanted to be in charge and important.

Money is an important aspect of being important, as are the contacts and influence that come from being wealthy. So, while I wouldn't accuse him of lining up jobs in order to cash out, I have absolutely no faith that his leadership of the UK won't be conducted with half an eye to how it could get him to somewhere else that he wants to go, especially if the promised growth never happens and he's left with the potential of losing the next election.

Puja

[Banquo]

Ethically, logically, any way you look at it, it makes no sense. It's just the best that a centrist manager with zero imagination and zero empathy can come up with. Not to worry though, Starmer only took a flyer at becoming PM. This is all a bonus to him. What he will make sure of is to line up a nice job for himself afterwards. Head of NATO? COO of the Tony Blair Institute? Head of the Vladimir Putin Centre for Democratic Studies? No matter, as long as the money and status accrues to him, he'll leave behind the shattered remnants of UK democracy (and the Labour Party ) without a thought.

you can't seriously think he's doing this for the money or some sort of post PM mega earnings??? Whatever you say about him, he's took the leadership of the Labour Party very seriously, and tilted at big windmills; the massive failure has been not really having any beliefs, therefore vision, therefore plan. Status maybe.

I wouldn't accuse him of being avaricious, but I would say he's a person who has executed a campaign for the highest post in British politics simply in order to have it. He has said, and done, anything and everything, in order to run the country and it doesn't appear to be because he has any desires or beliefs that he wants to enact. He just wanted to be in charge and important.

Money is an important aspect of being important, as are the contacts and influence that come from being wealthy. So, while I wouldn't accuse him of lining up jobs in order to cash out, I have absolutely no faith that his leadership of the UK won't be conducted with half an eye to how it could get him to somewhere else that he wants to go, especially if the promised growth never happens and he's left with the potential of losing the next election.

Puja

I mostly agree, hence status comment and the rest of what I said. I'm not sure he's looking beyond the next 10 minutes tho. I totally agree that disappointingly its power for power's sake in the end, tho I suspect it wasn't that in the start.

I remember chatting to a very pissed Ken Livingstone once, and he said, power is the only thing that matters, in effect. His sole aim in getting elected- he said- was getting cheap bus fares in place. But he was pissed.

[Puja]

you can't seriously think he's doing this for the money or some sort of post PM mega earnings??? Whatever you say about him, he's took the leadership of the Labour Party very seriously, and tilted at big windmills; the massive failure has been not really having any beliefs, therefore vision, therefore plan. Status maybe.

I wouldn't accuse him of being avaricious, but I would say he's a person who has executed a campaign for the highest post in British politics simply in order to have it. He has said, and done, anything and everything, in order to run the country and it doesn't appear to be because he has any desires or beliefs that he wants to enact. He just wanted to be in charge and important.

Money is an important aspect of being important, as are the contacts and influence that come from being wealthy. So, while I wouldn't accuse him of lining up jobs in order to cash out, I have absolutely no faith that his leadership of the UK won't be conducted with half an eye to how it could get him to somewhere else that he wants to go, especially if the promised growth never happens and he's left with the potential of losing the next election.

Puja

I mostly agree, hence status comment and the rest of what I said. I'm not sure he's looking beyond the next 10 minutes tho. I totally agree that disappointingly its power for power's sake in the end, tho I suspect it wasn't that in the start.

I remember chatting to a very pissed Ken Livingstone once, and he said, power is the only thing that matters, in effect. His sole aim in getting elected- he said- was getting cheap bus fares in place. But he was pissed.

I understand "Power is the only thing that matters" as a philosophy when it's applied as a scold to ideological purists - there's definitely an argument that it's better to compromise some and be in enough power to enact some of your beliefs, than it is to stay pure and accomplish nothing. However, I don't understand power being the end goal. Surely you must want power in order to **do** something, even if it's just cheap bus fares?

Puja

[Banquo]

I wouldn't accuse him of being avaricious, but I would say he's a person who has executed a campaign for the highest post in British politics simply in order to have it. He has said, and done, anything and everything, in order to run the country and it doesn't appear to be because he has any desires or beliefs that he wants to enact. He just wanted to be in charge and important.

Money is an important aspect of being important, as are the contacts and influence that come from being wealthy. So, while I wouldn't accuse him of lining up jobs in order to cash out, I have absolutely no faith that his leadership of the UK won't be conducted with half an eye to how it could get him to somewhere else that he wants to go, especially if the promised growth never happens and he's left with the potential of losing the next election.

Puja

I mostly agree, hence status comment and the rest of what I said. I'm not sure he's looking beyond the next 10 minutes tho. I totally agree that disappointingly its power for power's sake in the end, tho I suspect it wasn't that in the start.

I remember chatting to a very pissed Ken Livingstone once, and he said, power is the only thing that matters, in effect. His sole aim in getting elected- he said- was getting cheap bus fares in place. But he was pissed.

I understand "Power is the only thing that matters" as a philosophy when it's applied as a scold to ideological purists - there's definitely an argument that it's better to compromise some and be in enough power to enact some of your beliefs, than it is to stay pure and accomplish nothing. However, I don't understand power being the end goal. Surely you must want power in order to **do** something, even if it's just cheap bus fares?

Puja

indeed. We've just circled round to Starmer. He's got there and he doesn't appear to know why.

[Son of Mathonwy]

No doubt Labour's spineless failure to retaliate against US tariffs on metals will cause Trump to respect us. Yep, that'll work.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... mp-tariffs