Snap General Election called - The new UK Politics thread

[Stom]

I'm sorry, but I am just increasingly of the opinion that the UK government is bought and paid for.

Otherwise there's no reason for what happens, for the stances taken...

Bought and paid for.

[Mikey Brown]

Sure they will, just not in the good way.

Blue Labour. Not Labour. How did these bastards get in the party?

Sorry, there's a logic to it but that is only going to work against Reform if Labour turns full fascist, and even then it would take a decade (and a charismatic leader) to convince the public that Labour aren't really lefties in Nazi uniforms. By which time they'd have long since lost all centre and left voters and be down to a couple of MPs.

Like Blair before him, Starmer is on the centre-right and should never have been in the party. The damage Blair did and Starmer is doing, to party and country is, to use someone else's words, incalculable.

The same way Corbyn's yoof I assume?

I actually don't know where Starmer sits frankly; he was happy to serve under Corbyn and espouse and support his policies, which I reckon are nearer to home than his current lets get elected centrist stance. But as been said before, he's a technocrat/beaurocrat with no obvious beliefs that he'll stick to for more than a nanosecond when confronted with reality; they had absolutely no clue what or how to do when elected, I think they thought the cabinet office 'did stuff'.

He was? I thought he was quite active/key in the way Corbyn got booted?

I’m finding the things Starmer says to mean little in terms of what he actually believes or what action he’ll take.

[Banquo]

Blue Labour. Not Labour. How did these bastards get in the party?

Sorry, there's a logic to it but that is only going to work against Reform if Labour turns full fascist, and even then it would take a decade (and a charismatic leader) to convince the public that Labour aren't really lefties in Nazi uniforms. By which time they'd have long since lost all centre and left voters and be down to a couple of MPs.

Like Blair before him, Starmer is on the centre-right and should never have been in the party. The damage Blair did and Starmer is doing, to party and country is, to use someone else's words, incalculable.

The same way Corbyn's yoof I assume?

I actually don't know where Starmer sits frankly; he was happy to serve under Corbyn and espouse and support his policies, which I reckon are nearer to home than his current lets get elected centrist stance. But as been said before, he's a technocrat/beaurocrat with no obvious beliefs that he'll stick to for more than a nanosecond when confronted with reality; they had absolutely no clue what or how to do when elected, I think they thought the cabinet office 'did stuff'.

He was? I thought he was quite active/key in the way Corbyn got booted?

I’m finding the things Starmer says to mean little in terms of what he actually believes or what action he’ll take.

Look back at the 2019 ge and his job in shadow cabinet The fact he then unseated Corbyn says much about his principles.

[Banquo]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpw70j1k540o

What's left to cut?

I'll give you start.....licensing sub committees. I sat in one for 6 hours of utterly futile and mad debate. Democracy pffttt.

That's your own damn fault

Just trying to keep the rugby club afloat mate

[Son of Mathonwy]

Sure they will, just not in the good way.

Blue Labour. Not Labour. How did these bastards get in the party?

Sorry, there's a logic to it but that is only going to work against Reform if Labour turns full fascist, and even then it would take a decade (and a charismatic leader) to convince the public that Labour aren't really lefties in Nazi uniforms. By which time they'd have long since lost all centre and left voters and be down to a couple of MPs.

Like Blair before him, Starmer is on the centre-right and should never have been in the party. The damage Blair did and Starmer is doing, to party and country is, to use someone else's words, incalculable.

The same way Corbyn's yoof I assume?

I actually don't know where Starmer sits frankly; he was happy to serve under Corbyn and espouse and support his policies, which I reckon are nearer to home than his current lets get elected centrist stance. But as been said before, he's a technocrat/beaurocrat with no obvious beliefs that he'll stick to for more than a nanosecond when confronted with reality; they had absolutely no clue what or how to do when elected, I think they thought the cabinet office 'did stuff'.

I don't understand your 'Corbyn's yoof' point.

With Starmer there is always uncertainty because he doesn't have principles. That amorphous nature (and short political history) allowed him to lie to the Labour party in 2020 and present himself as left wing. NB I wouldn't read too much into him being 'happy' to serve under Corbyn - that's just a very ambitious man doing whatever it takes. Since then, a lot more evidence has come in. The people he's surrounded himself with are on the rightmost wing of the Labour party - that's no accident. If he was a truly politics-free human being he'd have a range of politiçal flavours surrounding him. So his instincts are to the right of centre (at least). Most things he's done since 2020 have been just a little to the left of Sunak's Tories, and since the election he's steered further right, at times into far right. Taking all this into account IMO that makes him approximately centre-right but with no principles or ethics preventing him from steering a lot further right.

As for his plans for government, although it seems difficult to believe, yes, he may well have had only the sketchiest ideas for what to do on day one. Maybe he really is so goal-focused and convinced of his own genius-level management ability that he really did give no thought to what happened after election. It fits the facts. He did say there is no such thing as Starmerism, he would just make one decision after another (based on no principles, just his miraculous ability to manage). It really is that bad.

[Danno]

I'll give you start.....licensing sub committees. I sat in one for 6 hours of utterly futile and mad debate. Democracy pffttt.

That's your own damn fault

Just trying to keep the rugby club afloat mate

[Banquo]

Blue Labour. Not Labour. How did these bastards get in the party?

Sorry, there's a logic to it but that is only going to work against Reform if Labour turns full fascist, and even then it would take a decade (and a charismatic leader) to convince the public that Labour aren't really lefties in Nazi uniforms. By which time they'd have long since lost all centre and left voters and be down to a couple of MPs.

Like Blair before him, Starmer is on the centre-right and should never have been in the party. The damage Blair did and Starmer is doing, to party and country is, to use someone else's words, incalculable.

The same way Corbyn's yoof I assume?

I actually don't know where Starmer sits frankly; he was happy to serve under Corbyn and espouse and support his policies, which I reckon are nearer to home than his current lets get elected centrist stance. But as been said before, he's a technocrat/beaurocrat with no obvious beliefs that he'll stick to for more than a nanosecond when confronted with reality; they had absolutely no clue what or how to do when elected, I think they thought the cabinet office 'did stuff'.

I don't understand your 'Corbyn's yoof' point.

With Starmer there is always uncertainty because he doesn't have principles. That amorphous nature (and short political history) allowed him to lie to the Labour party in 2020 and present himself as left wing. NB I wouldn't read too much into him being 'happy' to serve under Corbyn - that's just a very ambitious man doing whatever it takes. Since then, a lot more evidence has come in. The people he's surrounded himself with are on the rightmost wing of the Labour party - that's no accident. If he was a truly politics-free human being he'd have a range of politiçal flavours surrounding him. So his instincts are to the right of centre (at least). Most things he's done since 2020 have been just a little to the left of Sunak's Tories, and since the election he's steered further right, at times into far right. Taking all this into account IMO that makes him approximately centre-right but with no principles or ethics preventing him from steering a lot further right.

As for his plans for government, although it seems difficult to believe, yes, he may well have had only the sketchiest ideas for what to do on day one. Maybe he really is so goal-focused and convinced of his own genius-level management ability that he really did give no thought to what happened after election. It fits the facts. He did say there is no such thing as Starmerism, he would just make one decision after another (based on no principles, just his miraculous ability to manage). It really is that bad.

The cheap membership that enabled Corbyn's election. As I said, I don't know where he sits, and we are all guessing, because as you said, as I did, he'll say and do anything to get into power, and seemingly now to avoid any bad press. Evidence points one way, but equally could shift with the wind.

I agree with your last para.

[Son of Mathonwy]

The same way Corbyn's yoof I assume?

I actually don't know where Starmer sits frankly; he was happy to serve under Corbyn and espouse and support his policies, which I reckon are nearer to home than his current lets get elected centrist stance. But as been said before, he's a technocrat/beaurocrat with no obvious beliefs that he'll stick to for more than a nanosecond when confronted with reality; they had absolutely no clue what or how to do when elected, I think they thought the cabinet office 'did stuff'.

I don't understand your 'Corbyn's yoof' point.

With Starmer there is always uncertainty because he doesn't have principles. That amorphous nature (and short political history) allowed him to lie to the Labour party in 2020 and present himself as left wing. NB I wouldn't read too much into him being 'happy' to serve under Corbyn - that's just a very ambitious man doing whatever it takes. Since then, a lot more evidence has come in. The people he's surrounded himself with are on the rightmost wing of the Labour party - that's no accident. If he was a truly politics-free human being he'd have a range of politiçal flavours surrounding him. So his instincts are to the right of centre (at least). Most things he's done since 2020 have been just a little to the left of Sunak's Tories, and since the election he's steered further right, at times into far right. Taking all this into account IMO that makes him approximately centre-right but with no principles or ethics preventing him from steering a lot further right.

As for his plans for government, although it seems difficult to believe, yes, he may well have had only the sketchiest ideas for what to do on day one. Maybe he really is so goal-focused and convinced of his own genius-level management ability that he really did give no thought to what happened after election. It fits the facts. He did say there is no such thing as Starmerism, he would just make one decision after another (based on no principles, just his miraculous ability to manage). It really is that bad.

The cheap membership that enabled Corbyn's election. As I said, I don't know where he sits, and we are all guessing, because as you said, as I did, he'll say and do anything to get into power, and seemingly now to avoid any bad press. Evidence points one way, but equally could shift with the wind.

I agree with your last para.

Yep. The only hope is for Starmer to walk (or to be removed under the party's vague rules) . . . but there's not much hope of than any time soon.

[Son of Mathonwy]

This is cheerful:

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/pre ... _home.html

Would Starmer consider PR to prevent this FPTP disaster? Nah, probably not.

[Puja]

This is cheerful:

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/pre ... _home.html

Would Starmer consider PR to prevent this FPTP disaster? Nah, probably not.

That is my only hope - that it becomes in the Parliamentary Labour Party's best interests to end FPtP and then, miraculously, they decide to agree with what the membership and the country have been crying out for. I get that Keir is enjoying the largest majority in donkeys years and it being all down to FPtP, but there has not been an election in the last 50 years where the Conservatives (plus Reform/UKIP/Brexit/DUP/BNP/etc) have got more than 50% of the vote and yet in that time there have been 8 Conservative governments, with several of them being extremely hard-line.

Britain is not an inherently right-wing nation, but FPtP creates right-wing governments because the left is always split. And yet, every time that Labour gets in power, they forget the years of Conservatives winning majority governments and passing whatever they like on 36% of the vote and are just super-excited to use their new majority to exercise unilateral power, blithely content that, this time, it's different and that they won't get shafted when a future election gives a 36% Tory mandate to undo all the stuff they've done.

I don't hold out much hope though, for two reasons: 1) Starmer believes that he'll have "growth" before the next election and thus people will forgive him all his sins - obviously didn't see how that plan worked out for Biden. Turns out people don't believe the economy's good if they hate you and love the demagogue screaming that it's terrible. 2) Enacting PR (or MMP or some other option) would benefit the left as a whole and would benefit the country, but it wouldn't necessarily benefit Sir Starmer or the PLP (as Labour's vote would evaporate as the people clinging on for "Dear god, not Reform" reasons were allowed to go elsewhere) and neither of those have shown the slightest desire to be altruistic or interested in "the benefit of the country."

Puja

[Stom]

This is cheerful:

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/pre ... _home.html

Would Starmer consider PR to prevent this FPTP disaster? Nah, probably not.

That is my only hope - that it becomes in the Parliamentary Labour Party's best interests to end FPtP and then, miraculously, they decide to agree with what the membership and the country have been crying out for. I get that Keir is enjoying the largest majority in donkeys years and it being all down to FPtP, but there has not been an election in the last 50 years where the Conservatives (plus Reform/UKIP/Brexit/DUP/BNP/etc) have got more than 50% of the vote and yet in that time there have been 8 Conservative governments, with several of them being extremely hard-line.

Britain is not an inherently right-wing nation, but FPtP creates right-wing governments because the left is always split. And yet, every time that Labour gets in power, they forget the years of Conservatives winning majority governments and passing whatever they like on 36% of the vote and are just super-excited to use their new majority to exercise unilateral power, blithely content that, this time it's different, and that they won't get shafted when a future election gives a 36% Tory mandate to undo all the stuff they've done.

I don't hold out much hope though, for two reasons: 1) Starmer believes that he'll have "growth" before the next election and thus people will forgive him all his sins - obviously didn't see how that plan worked out for Biden. Turns out people don't believe the economy's good if they hate you and love the demagogue screaming that it's terrible. 2) Enacting PR (or MMP or some other option) would benefit the left as a whole and would benefit the country, but it wouldn't necessarily benefit Sir Starmer or the PLP (as Labour's vote would evaporate as the people clinging on for "Dear god, not Reform" reasons were allowed to go elsewhere) and neither of those have shown the slightest desire to be altruistic or interested in "the benefit of the country."

Puja

The problem with hanging anything on growth is that there is literally nothing the UK government can do at this point...it's fecked. We're at the end of a cycle, neo-capitalism has bought the world to it's knees, and inequality is reaching critical mass.

The only growth to be had is in banking, for the UK, and that is appalling (and also the reason for Brexit). The tech bubble is getting close to bursting, thousands of developers will be out of jobs, joining the rest scrabbling for work while the rich get richer and the pensioners scream about their winter fuel allowance while wondering how they can survive on just £30k a year from their pension if they live to 100...because they want to live to 100, and they probably can, because they're rich as hell compared to other generations.

So, society is screwed, flushed down the toilet, growth is a stupid metric. And what will our kids inherit? Yeah...

[Puja]

Meanwhile, in TelegraphLand: https://archive.ph/6c6AH

Starmer could be Labour’s last PM. That’s why he is a danger to Britain
As the Prime Minister’s problems mount, he will adopt Corbynite policies to appeal to the far Left

...
Bring it on, I hear you say. But a desperate Starmer will be far worse than the incompetent, complacent version we have been subjected to so far. He no longer has anything to lose. He will target Middle England with wanton abandon, embracing Corbyn-lite policies to shore up his far-Left flank.

Every stupid idea in the collectivist arsenal – wealth taxes, the revaluation of council tax bands to hammer expensive homes, a cap on pension pots, the removal of pension tax relief, a war on Isas, steeper inheritance tax – is bound to make a comeback to fill his self-inflicted fiscal black hole.

The “rich” will be asked to pay more for water and broadband via “social tariffs”. Ed Miliband will be emboldened in his rush to net zero, minus the occasional tactical delay. There will be no end to the woke madness, rampant crime and unjust legal decisions.

As ludicrous as this might sound to outsiders aghast at Starmer’s proto-socialism and disgusted by the human rights lawfare pushed by Lord Hermer, his attorney general, many Labour MPs and intellectuals actually believe that Starmer’s error was to tack too far to the Right.
...
For Starmer, the only hope is to tack Left, appealing to Greens and Corbynites, to bash Israel and U-turn on cuts, but it won’t work: this electorate has become so extreme that even a speech praising Marx and Engels would flop.

It's (unintentionally) a comedy article, operating in a fundamentally different reality to the one that we're all living in, aglow with fallacies including slippery slope, false equivalence, false binary, begging the question, and probably a dozen more that I haven't got the energy to lay out, but the biggest fallacy of all is the idea that Starmer might see the solution to his problems being appealing to the Left. As the expression goes, stop threatening us a with a good time!

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

This is cheerful:

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/pre ... _home.html

Would Starmer consider PR to prevent this FPTP disaster? Nah, probably not.

That is my only hope - that it becomes in the Parliamentary Labour Party's best interests to end FPtP and then, miraculously, they decide to agree with what the membership and the country have been crying out for. I get that Keir is enjoying the largest majority in donkeys years and it being all down to FPtP, but there has not been an election in the last 50 years where the Conservatives (plus Reform/UKIP/Brexit/DUP/BNP/etc) have got more than 50% of the vote and yet in that time there have been 8 Conservative governments, with several of them being extremely hard-line.

Britain is not an inherently right-wing nation, but FPtP creates right-wing governments because the left is always split. And yet, every time that Labour gets in power, they forget the years of Conservatives winning majority governments and passing whatever they like on 36% of the vote and are just super-excited to use their new majority to exercise unilateral power, blithely content that, this time it's different, and that they won't get shafted when a future election gives a 36% Tory mandate to undo all the stuff they've done.

I don't hold out much hope though, for two reasons: 1) Starmer believes that he'll have "growth" before the next election and thus people will forgive him all his sins - obviously didn't see how that plan worked out for Biden. Turns out people don't believe the economy's good if they hate you and love the demagogue screaming that it's terrible. 2) Enacting PR (or MMP or some other option) would benefit the left as a whole and would benefit the country, but it wouldn't necessarily benefit Sir Starmer or the PLP (as Labour's vote would evaporate as the people clinging on for "Dear god, not Reform" reasons were allowed to go elsewhere) and neither of those have shown the slightest desire to be altruistic or interested in "the benefit of the country."

Puja

The problem with hanging anything on growth is that there is literally nothing the UK government can do at this point...it's fecked. We're at the end of a cycle, neo-capitalism has bought the world to it's knees, and inequality is reaching critical mass.

The only growth to be had is in banking, for the UK, and that is appalling (and also the reason for Brexit). The tech bubble is getting close to bursting, thousands of developers will be out of jobs, joining the rest scrabbling for work while the rich get richer and the pensioners scream about their winter fuel allowance while wondering how they can survive on just £30k a year from their pension if they live to 100...because they want to live to 100, and they probably can, because they're rich as hell compared to other generations.

So, society is screwed, flushed down the toilet, growth is a stupid metric. And what will our kids inherit? Yeah...

They certainly can't rely on have better growth than the Tories, especially running the economy in exactly the same way. So they need to share out what we have more evenly.

There is a small chance that Starmer might go for PR rather than lose catastrophically at the next election. But I don't think he will. His big money backers won't want him to - a Farage government is better for them than some kind of progressive or centrist alliance. They'll just redirect their bribes to Reform UK when the time comes.

As for Starmer, what difference does it make to him if he loses power to Farage or if the whole of politics gets upended by PR? Either way he's out as a failed Labour leader. And I suspect a guy like him would do very well in Farage's rich-first UK. Also, making a big change like PR would require vision and this is Starmer.

[Banquo]

Handily, looks like Reform will self combust https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq54p9epdg6o

[Son of Mathonwy]

Handily, looks like Reform will self combust https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq54p9epdg6o

Wow, "I no longer believe working to get a Reform government elected is a good use of my time."

That's almost like saying "I no longer believe a Reform government would be a good thing." Not quite, but a very negative parting shot. Guess he's finally figured out that Farage is impossible to work with. Just like Trump. Unfortunately that didn't prevent Trump getting elected, twice.

[Sandydragon]

Handily, looks like Reform will self combust https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq54p9epdg6o

Wow, "I no longer believe working to get a Reform government elected is a good use of my time."

That's almost like saying "I no longer believe a Reform government would be a good thing." Not quite, but a very negative parting shot. Guess he's finally figured out that Farage is impossible to work with. Just like Trump. Unfortunately that didn't prevent Trump getting elected, twice.

Apparently they have made up. I wonder what the odds are on a massive reform implosion during this parliament? It’s all a one man band on steroids that feeds off discontent, but will the supporting cast play nicely?

[Son of Mathonwy]

At last a sensible winter fuel allowance policy ie give everyone the allowance but claw it back from higher earners (just like child benefit).

This is what Reeves should have done in the first place. The old policy saved £1.5 BN at best and caused massive damage to Labour's electoral chances. Reeves could have fixed it before last winter but no, she stuck it out. Starmer should fire her for this alone (but then maybe he and McSweeney agreed with it at the time, being equally clueless).

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... -announces

[Son of Mathonwy]

Much that I hope we get some of that fortune back from Mone/Barrowman, and get criminal charges on them, my biggest issue with the case is not the £122m charged for useless gowns, it's the fact that the Tory government gave contracts so generous to their mates that they could pocket at least a third of the £200m or so spent, as net profit.

We can only assume this kind of outrageous instant lottery-win was available to many or all of those in the 'VIP lane'. A colossal, corrupt diverting of state cash into private pockets. It's the Johnson government who should be in the dock over this.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... high-court

[Sandydragon]

Much that I hope we get some of that fortune back from Mone/Barrowman, and get criminal charges on them, my biggest issue with the case is not the £122m charged for useless gowns, it's the fact that the Tory government gave contracts so generous to their mates that they could pocket at least a third of the £200m or so spent, as net profit.

We can only assume this kind of outrageous instant lottery-win was available to many or all of those in the 'VIP lane'. A colossal, corrupt diverting of state cash into private pockets. It's the Johnson government who should be in the dock over this.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... high-court

Agreed. People complain about the slow pace of procurement but n the public sector- it’s designed to avoid problems like this.

The pandemic was a reason to move much quicker. But the waste caused by dodgy contracts, or just the wrong contract, is staggering. It’s not a great advertisement for just in time supplies.

[Which Tyler]

Cult of Farage councillors taking their lead from the cult leader

https://www.independent.co.uk/bulletin/ ... 65359.html

[Sandydragon]

Cult of Farage councillors taking their lead from the cult leader

https://www.independent.co.uk/bulletin/ ... 65359.html

Yep. Totally incompetent. They are probably realising that having power at local government isn’t all it was cracked up to be and you actually have to make grown up decisions. All that hot air and posturing will only get them so far.

Where I live, the conservatives councillor who was a hard working and decent bloke was replaced by a Reform type who I can’t even recognise. No picture on the election pamphlet and he’s been invisible since the election.

It’s just a grievance machine which is incapable of serious government. I only hope that their utter failure to run anything will be recognised. Sadly, I think they might do very well in Wales and this that failure will badly impact a country which doesn’t need any more shyte government.

[Which Tyler]

Be fair - Reform councils and mayors, have successfully disposed of their regions' DEI officers, and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods.

Of course, it helped that those thing never existed in the first place - but they've still got those victories to crow about.

[Puja]

Fuck's sake Keir: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7872pngj2qo

Reform voters are never gonna fuck you! Give up the dream!

Puja

[Danno]

Fuck's sake Keir: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7872pngj2qo

Reform voters are never gonna fuck you! Give up the dream!

Puja

Vile cunt. The man stands for nothing and no-one.

[Son of Mathonwy]

The government wouldn't have to make any of its unpopular spending cuts if it axed HS2. Total madness.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ing-review