Snap General Election called

[Puja]

Starmer has pissed away almost his entire lead over the Tories.

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

"Judge me on these new six targets," says Kier Starmer, in his third relaunch of his five month old government, while continuing to utterly miss the point of politics.

Civil servants and government people like quantitive economic targets. Banks and markets like quantitive economic targets. Economists like quantitive economic targets. Investors and billionaries like quantitive economic targets. Unfortunately for Keir, those aren't the people whose votes he needs in order to prevent Nigel Farage's privately owned fascism company.

People won't "judge you on your targets" Keir. No-one's going to examine the data before deciding if you've done a good job for them - you need to be making their lives better in a way that they see and believe. If you have to explain to people that, no really, you are actually doing a good job when you look at all the things, you're already losing.

Don't talk. Don't explain. Actually get shit done.

Puja

[Stom]

Starmer has pissed away almost his entire lead over the Tories.

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

"Judge me on these new six targets," says Kier Starmer, in his third relaunch of his five month old government, while continuing to utterly miss the point of politics.

Civil servants and government people like quantitive economic targets. Banks and markets like quantitive economic targets. Economists like quantitive economic targets. Investors and billionaries like quantitive economic targets. Unfortunately for Keir, those aren't the people whose votes he needs in order to prevent Nigel Farage's privately owned fascism company.

People won't "judge you on your targets" Keir. No-one's going to examine the data before deciding if you've done a good job for them - you need to be making their lives better in a way that they see and believe. If you have to explain to people that, no really, you are actually doing a good job when you look at all the things, you're already losing.

Don't talk. Don't explain. Actually get shit done.

Puja

Maybe because he knows that the polls don’t matter right now, but the markets do. If he can get a nice economic up turn, it’ll make like better for the majority and they’ll feel better. Then make a couple of policies as bones for the rabid masses in 3 years time and bingo

[Son of Mathonwy]

Starmer has pissed away almost his entire lead over the Tories.

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

"Judge me on these new six targets," says Kier Starmer, in his third relaunch of his five month old government, while continuing to utterly miss the point of politics.

Civil servants and government people like quantitive economic targets. Banks and markets like quantitive economic targets. Economists like quantitive economic targets. Investors and billionaries like quantitive economic targets. Unfortunately for Keir, those aren't the people whose votes he needs in order to prevent Nigel Farage's privately owned fascism company.

People won't "judge you on your targets" Keir. No-one's going to examine the data before deciding if you've done a good job for them - you need to be making their lives better in a way that they see and believe. If you have to explain to people that, no really, you are actually doing a good job when you look at all the things, you're already losing.

Don't talk. Don't explain. Actually get shit done.

Puja

Maybe because he knows that the polls don’t matter right now, but the markets do. If he can get a nice economic up turn, it’ll make like better for the majority and they’ll feel better. Then make a couple of policies as bones for the rabid masses in 3 years time and bingo

The polls don't matter in a life-or-death way right now but they really do matter in a first impressions way. Start well and you have something to build on. That's what Blair did, and it lasted till he really fucked up . . . and then it still lasted till finance fucked up. Thatcher was very lucky to make it through the first years - she needed the Falklands War and the SDP splitting the labour vote to win reelection.

Starmer doesn't have any of Blair's charisma or political skills. He just fancies himself as a good manager. He thought, I can do that, so he tried and got extremely lucky with the timing (Johnson, Truss, inflation, Reform UK) and won big on a small vote share. He may be a good manager but this is a bigger and different job, one for which his skills do not fit well. He's just winging it - he has no vision, no great plan other than to think that he'll be rewarded for being steady, and hope that things beyond his control get better.

He is unable or unwilling to learn the lessons of the US election (nor will the Democrats, I suspect) and he won't get the advice he needs from the centrists he's surrounded himself with, either. The Winter fuel allowance debacle shows that he's clueless about politics. The lowering of the entry point for employers' NI show that he has no desire to help the poor. His approach to Gaza shows that he has no moral compass and doesn't believe that laws should be applied equally. I'd be glad to see him lose the next election except that the alternative is even worse.

[Stom]

"Judge me on these new six targets," says Kier Starmer, in his third relaunch of his five month old government, while continuing to utterly miss the point of politics.

Civil servants and government people like quantitive economic targets. Banks and markets like quantitive economic targets. Economists like quantitive economic targets. Investors and billionaries like quantitive economic targets. Unfortunately for Keir, those aren't the people whose votes he needs in order to prevent Nigel Farage's privately owned fascism company.

People won't "judge you on your targets" Keir. No-one's going to examine the data before deciding if you've done a good job for them - you need to be making their lives better in a way that they see and believe. If you have to explain to people that, no really, you are actually doing a good job when you look at all the things, you're already losing.

Don't talk. Don't explain. Actually get shit done.

Puja

Maybe because he knows that the polls don’t matter right now, but the markets do. If he can get a nice economic up turn, it’ll make like better for the majority and they’ll feel better. Then make a couple of policies as bones for the rabid masses in 3 years time and bingo

The polls don't matter in a life-or-death way right now but they really do matter in a first impressions way. Start well and you have something to build on. That's what Blair did, and it lasted till he really fucked up . . . and then it still lasted till finance fucked up. Thatcher was very lucky to make it through the first years - she needed the Falklands War and the SDP splitting the labour vote to win reelection.

Starmer doesn't have any of Blair's charisma or political skills. He just fancies himself as a good manager. He thought, I can do that, so he tried and got extremely lucky with the timing (Johnson, Truss, inflation, Reform UK) and won big on a small vote share. He may be a good manager but this is a bigger and different job, one for which his skills do not fit well. He's just winging it - he has no vision, no great plan other than to think that he'll be rewarded for being steady, and hope that things beyond his control get better.

He is unable or unwilling to learn the lessons of the US election (nor will the Democrats, I suspect) and he won't get the advice he needs from the centrists he's surrounded himself with, either. The Winter fuel allowance debacle shows that he's clueless about politics. The lowering of the entry point for employers' NI show that he has no desire to help the poor. His approach to Gaza shows that he has no moral compass and doesn't believe that laws should be applied equally. I'd be glad to see him lose the next election except that the alternative is even worse.

As much as I’m one who likes to look at patterns in history, the truth is that the social and media landscape is completely different from when Blair rose to power.

If Blair came to power today, he would not have the celebration that happened in the UK. It was like a celebration at the end of Thatcherism. But everyone who celebrated that has either died or been radicalized by Russian/Saudi propaganda.

We’re not going to get popular politicians who do the right thing. They just need to do the right thing and then play with reality closer to the election.

Look at Romania, ffs. Yes, the situation in the villages is appalling, but that’s because all the young people left for the cities and the old people left behind have no idea how to live in the 21st century.

And situation in the cities… damn it is alive. People have money. Government are corrupt, but they’ve spent money on improving life for people.

And they’re hated by 45%+ of the populace. Who are then suckered into voting for a Russian plant. Luckily, Romanians have backbones and they’ve voided the result and are trying to put him in prison, but still…

The propaganda machine is so powerful today that it’s almost impossible.

[Sandydragon]

"Judge me on these new six targets," says Kier Starmer, in his third relaunch of his five month old government, while continuing to utterly miss the point of politics.

Civil servants and government people like quantitive economic targets. Banks and markets like quantitive economic targets. Economists like quantitive economic targets. Investors and billionaries like quantitive economic targets. Unfortunately for Keir, those aren't the people whose votes he needs in order to prevent Nigel Farage's privately owned fascism company.

People won't "judge you on your targets" Keir. No-one's going to examine the data before deciding if you've done a good job for them - you need to be making their lives better in a way that they see and believe. If you have to explain to people that, no really, you are actually doing a good job when you look at all the things, you're already losing.

Don't talk. Don't explain. Actually get shit done.

Puja

Maybe because he knows that the polls don’t matter right now, but the markets do. If he can get a nice economic up turn, it’ll make like better for the majority and they’ll feel better. Then make a couple of policies as bones for the rabid masses in 3 years time and bingo

The polls don't matter in a life-or-death way right now but they really do matter in a first impressions way. Start well and you have something to build on. That's what Blair did, and it lasted till he really fucked up . . . and then it still lasted till finance fucked up. Thatcher was very lucky to make it through the first years - she needed the Falklands War and the SDP splitting the labour vote to win reelection.

Starmer doesn't have any of Blair's charisma or political skills. He just fancies himself as a good manager. He thought, I can do that, so he tried and got extremely lucky with the timing (Johnson, Truss, inflation, Reform UK) and won big on a small vote share. He may be a good manager but this is a bigger and different job, one for which his skills do not fit well. He's just winging it - he has no vision, no great plan other than to think that he'll be rewarded for being steady, and hope that things beyond his control get better.

He is unable or unwilling to learn the lessons of the US election (nor will the Democrats, I suspect) and he won't get the advice he needs from the centrists he's surrounded himself with, either. The Winter fuel allowance debacle shows that he's clueless about politics. The lowering of the entry point for employers' NI show that he has no desire to help the poor. His approach to Gaza shows that he has no moral compass and doesn't believe that laws should be applied equally. I'd be glad to see him lose the next election except that the alternative is even worse.

There is a lot of merit in keeping things steady as everyone reacts to Trumps victory and what that means for Reform. Reform will win by-elections and May do very well in the Welsh elections (dear God) but it’s a long way to go to the GE. But Starmer doesn’t seem to have the ability to inspire. He’s missing that vital ability to inspire confidence, which allows those with more charisma to steal the stage.


Starmer has had the shortest honeymoon of any PM and the press are really out to get him. He really needs some wins and then learn how to make the most of them.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Maybe because he knows that the polls don’t matter right now, but the markets do. If he can get a nice economic up turn, it’ll make like better for the majority and they’ll feel better. Then make a couple of policies as bones for the rabid masses in 3 years time and bingo

The polls don't matter in a life-or-death way right now but they really do matter in a first impressions way. Start well and you have something to build on. That's what Blair did, and it lasted till he really fucked up . . . and then it still lasted till finance fucked up. Thatcher was very lucky to make it through the first years - she needed the Falklands War and the SDP splitting the labour vote to win reelection.

Starmer doesn't have any of Blair's charisma or political skills. He just fancies himself as a good manager. He thought, I can do that, so he tried and got extremely lucky with the timing (Johnson, Truss, inflation, Reform UK) and won big on a small vote share. He may be a good manager but this is a bigger and different job, one for which his skills do not fit well. He's just winging it - he has no vision, no great plan other than to think that he'll be rewarded for being steady, and hope that things beyond his control get better.

He is unable or unwilling to learn the lessons of the US election (nor will the Democrats, I suspect) and he won't get the advice he needs from the centrists he's surrounded himself with, either. The Winter fuel allowance debacle shows that he's clueless about politics. The lowering of the entry point for employers' NI show that he has no desire to help the poor. His approach to Gaza shows that he has no moral compass and doesn't believe that laws should be applied equally. I'd be glad to see him lose the next election except that the alternative is even worse.

As much as I’m one who likes to look at patterns in history, the truth is that the social and media landscape is completely different from when Blair rose to power.

If Blair came to power today, he would not have the celebration that happened in the UK. It was like a celebration at the end of Thatcherism. But everyone who celebrated that has either died or been radicalized by Russian/Saudi propaganda.

We’re not going to get popular politicians who do the right thing. They just need to do the right thing and then play with reality closer to the election.

Look at Romania, ffs. Yes, the situation in the villages is appalling, but that’s because all the young people left for the cities and the old people left behind have no idea how to live in the 21st century.

And situation in the cities… damn it is alive. People have money. Government are corrupt, but they’ve spent money on improving life for people.

And they’re hated by 45%+ of the populace. Who are then suckered into voting for a Russian plant. Luckily, Romanians have backbones and they’ve voided the result and are trying to put him in prison, but still…

The propaganda machine is so powerful today that it’s almost impossible.

I disagree about Blair not being similarly celebrated if he was in Starmer's place. He was more charismatic, younger, a much better speaker, and a far better political operator. He created the New Labour brand and had the skills to sell the media and public a nonexistent product - the Third Way. He had Murdoch onside (imagine Starmer having that). And the UK is in a much more desperate state than in 1997, so the need for change is a lot stronger than a tiredness with the Tories. (NB anyone who hoped Blair would end Thatcherism in 1997 was disappointed). Certainly the media landscape is different now but (much as I despise the man) I think Blair would have a much better handle on all that PR stuff, no matter the medium. Starmer simple cannot inspire - I wouldn't blame the technology for that.

Re politicians doing the 'right thing' vs being popular. Depends what you mean by the right thing. Since I think you're more right wing than me, we would likely disagree what the right thing is for putting the economy right. For me, when times are as tough as they are now, we need to spread what we have more evenly (ie increase equality). This should be both popular (obviously, since the majority will benefit) and good for the economy (since money in the hands of the poor is more likely to be spent, hence boosting the economy). You may not agree . . .

[Stom]

The polls don't matter in a life-or-death way right now but they really do matter in a first impressions way. Start well and you have something to build on. That's what Blair did, and it lasted till he really fucked up . . . and then it still lasted till finance fucked up. Thatcher was very lucky to make it through the first years - she needed the Falklands War and the SDP splitting the labour vote to win reelection.

Starmer doesn't have any of Blair's charisma or political skills. He just fancies himself as a good manager. He thought, I can do that, so he tried and got extremely lucky with the timing (Johnson, Truss, inflation, Reform UK) and won big on a small vote share. He may be a good manager but this is a bigger and different job, one for which his skills do not fit well. He's just winging it - he has no vision, no great plan other than to think that he'll be rewarded for being steady, and hope that things beyond his control get better.

He is unable or unwilling to learn the lessons of the US election (nor will the Democrats, I suspect) and he won't get the advice he needs from the centrists he's surrounded himself with, either. The Winter fuel allowance debacle shows that he's clueless about politics. The lowering of the entry point for employers' NI show that he has no desire to help the poor. His approach to Gaza shows that he has no moral compass and doesn't believe that laws should be applied equally. I'd be glad to see him lose the next election except that the alternative is even worse.

As much as I’m one who likes to look at patterns in history, the truth is that the social and media landscape is completely different from when Blair rose to power.

If Blair came to power today, he would not have the celebration that happened in the UK. It was like a celebration at the end of Thatcherism. But everyone who celebrated that has either died or been radicalized by Russian/Saudi propaganda.

We’re not going to get popular politicians who do the right thing. They just need to do the right thing and then play with reality closer to the election.

Look at Romania, ffs. Yes, the situation in the villages is appalling, but that’s because all the young people left for the cities and the old people left behind have no idea how to live in the 21st century.

And situation in the cities… damn it is alive. People have money. Government are corrupt, but they’ve spent money on improving life for people.

And they’re hated by 45%+ of the populace. Who are then suckered into voting for a Russian plant. Luckily, Romanians have backbones and they’ve voided the result and are trying to put him in prison, but still…

The propaganda machine is so powerful today that it’s almost impossible.

I disagree about Blair not being similarly celebrated if he was in Starmer's place. He was more charismatic, younger, a much better speaker, and a far better political operator. He created the New Labour brand and had the skills to sell the media and public a nonexistent product - the Third Way. He had Murdoch onside (imagine Starmer having that). And the UK is in a much more desperate state than in 1997, so the need for change is a lot stronger than a tiredness with the Tories. (NB anyone who hoped Blair would end Thatcherism in 1997 was disappointed). Certainly the media landscape is different now but (much as I despise the man) I think Blair would have a much better handle on all that PR stuff, no matter the medium. Starmer simple cannot inspire - I wouldn't blame the technology for that.

Re politicians doing the 'right thing' vs being popular. Depends what you mean by the right thing. Since I think you're more right wing than me, we would likely disagree what the right thing is for putting the economy right. For me, when times are as tough as they are now, we need to spread what we have more evenly (ie increase equality). This should be both popular (obviously, since the majority will benefit) and good for the economy (since money in the hands of the poor is more likely to be spent, hence boosting the economy). You may not agree . . .

lol, I wouldn’t put it that way. I think everyone else would consider my economic ideas as extremely radical… just different from yours. Less…traditional.

But I don’t think you can compare. Sure, a leader with the press on side would be incredible. But you can’t transport Blair to today and expect him to have that. The press are not what they were in 1997. Outside of the likes of the granuaid, NYT, Der Spiegel, and Le Monde, nearly every publication has a right wing tinge, while the popularity of alternative media sources whose only purpose is clicks to make money, meaning that the political landscape has been fractured.

No, Blair would not have the same impact, he was of his time. And as we’ve seen, 2020s Blair wouldn’t look out of place as leader of the Tory party…

[Son of Mathonwy]

As much as I’m one who likes to look at patterns in history, the truth is that the social and media landscape is completely different from when Blair rose to power.

If Blair came to power today, he would not have the celebration that happened in the UK. It was like a celebration at the end of Thatcherism. But everyone who celebrated that has either died or been radicalized by Russian/Saudi propaganda.

We’re not going to get popular politicians who do the right thing. They just need to do the right thing and then play with reality closer to the election.

Look at Romania, ffs. Yes, the situation in the villages is appalling, but that’s because all the young people left for the cities and the old people left behind have no idea how to live in the 21st century.

And situation in the cities… damn it is alive. People have money. Government are corrupt, but they’ve spent money on improving life for people.

And they’re hated by 45%+ of the populace. Who are then suckered into voting for a Russian plant. Luckily, Romanians have backbones and they’ve voided the result and are trying to put him in prison, but still…

The propaganda machine is so powerful today that it’s almost impossible.

I disagree about Blair not being similarly celebrated if he was in Starmer's place. He was more charismatic, younger, a much better speaker, and a far better political operator. He created the New Labour brand and had the skills to sell the media and public a nonexistent product - the Third Way. He had Murdoch onside (imagine Starmer having that). And the UK is in a much more desperate state than in 1997, so the need for change is a lot stronger than a tiredness with the Tories. (NB anyone who hoped Blair would end Thatcherism in 1997 was disappointed). Certainly the media landscape is different now but (much as I despise the man) I think Blair would have a much better handle on all that PR stuff, no matter the medium. Starmer simple cannot inspire - I wouldn't blame the technology for that.

Re politicians doing the 'right thing' vs being popular. Depends what you mean by the right thing. Since I think you're more right wing than me, we would likely disagree what the right thing is for putting the economy right. For me, when times are as tough as they are now, we need to spread what we have more evenly (ie increase equality). This should be both popular (obviously, since the majority will benefit) and good for the economy (since money in the hands of the poor is more likely to be spent, hence boosting the economy). You may not agree . . .

lol, I wouldn’t put it that way. I think everyone else would consider my economic ideas as extremely radical… just different from yours. Less…traditional.

But I don’t think you can compare. Sure, a leader with the press on side would be incredible. But you can’t transport Blair to today and expect him to have that. The press are not what they were in 1997. Outside of the likes of the granuaid, NYT, Der Spiegel, and Le Monde, nearly every publication has a right wing tinge, while the popularity of alternative media sources whose only purpose is clicks to make money, meaning that the political landscape has been fractured.

No, Blair would not have the same impact, he was of his time. And as we’ve seen, 2020s Blair wouldn’t look out of place as leader of the Tory party…

Blair would always have been a good fit for the Tory party. The tragedy for the UK is that he was in the Labour party. Instead of keeping the Tories on the centre-right/right he ruined the Labour party, making it centre-right, destroyed the UK's hopes for any left-wing government and cemented neoliberalism here.

[Stom]

I disagree about Blair not being similarly celebrated if he was in Starmer's place. He was more charismatic, younger, a much better speaker, and a far better political operator. He created the New Labour brand and had the skills to sell the media and public a nonexistent product - the Third Way. He had Murdoch onside (imagine Starmer having that). And the UK is in a much more desperate state than in 1997, so the need for change is a lot stronger than a tiredness with the Tories. (NB anyone who hoped Blair would end Thatcherism in 1997 was disappointed). Certainly the media landscape is different now but (much as I despise the man) I think Blair would have a much better handle on all that PR stuff, no matter the medium. Starmer simple cannot inspire - I wouldn't blame the technology for that.

Re politicians doing the 'right thing' vs being popular. Depends what you mean by the right thing. Since I think you're more right wing than me, we would likely disagree what the right thing is for putting the economy right. For me, when times are as tough as they are now, we need to spread what we have more evenly (ie increase equality). This should be both popular (obviously, since the majority will benefit) and good for the economy (since money in the hands of the poor is more likely to be spent, hence boosting the economy). You may not agree . . .

lol, I wouldn’t put it that way. I think everyone else would consider my economic ideas as extremely radical… just different from yours. Less…traditional.

But I don’t think you can compare. Sure, a leader with the press on side would be incredible. But you can’t transport Blair to today and expect him to have that. The press are not what they were in 1997. Outside of the likes of the granuaid, NYT, Der Spiegel, and Le Monde, nearly every publication has a right wing tinge, while the popularity of alternative media sources whose only purpose is clicks to make money, meaning that the political landscape has been fractured.

No, Blair would not have the same impact, he was of his time. And as we’ve seen, 2020s Blair wouldn’t look out of place as leader of the Tory party…

Blair would always have been a good fit for the Tory party. The tragedy for the UK is that he was in the Labour party. Instead of keeping the Tories on the centre-right/right he ruined the Labour party, making it centre-right, destroyed the UK's hopes for any left-wing government and cemented neoliberalism here.

I don't see how it's possible to say that Blair moved the Labour party to the centre-right, while saying the Tory party were centre-right...let's be fair here: economically, the Tories have been far right since Thatcher. I don't think there's any further right it's possible to go. Blair's Labour were pretty left of centre economically (well, they did have Brown in charge, who is definitely old Labour).

I just feel like there is a level of political illiteracy in the world, and it's understandable.

On Starmer, I feel like he's needed to make some decisions he would have wanted to leave alone in an ideal world, while he's been naive with the press and with comms. And unless he manages to make drastic changes to the balance of work in the UK, he's going to be struggling. Luckily the Tories have Karen Badandyuck...so it's not like he's going to lose.

[Puja]

lol, I wouldn’t put it that way. I think everyone else would consider my economic ideas as extremely radical… just different from yours. Less…traditional.

But I don’t think you can compare. Sure, a leader with the press on side would be incredible. But you can’t transport Blair to today and expect him to have that. The press are not what they were in 1997. Outside of the likes of the granuaid, NYT, Der Spiegel, and Le Monde, nearly every publication has a right wing tinge, while the popularity of alternative media sources whose only purpose is clicks to make money, meaning that the political landscape has been fractured.

No, Blair would not have the same impact, he was of his time. And as we’ve seen, 2020s Blair wouldn’t look out of place as leader of the Tory party…

Blair would always have been a good fit for the Tory party. The tragedy for the UK is that he was in the Labour party. Instead of keeping the Tories on the centre-right/right he ruined the Labour party, making it centre-right, destroyed the UK's hopes for any left-wing government and cemented neoliberalism here.

I don't see how it's possible to say that Blair moved the Labour party to the centre-right, while saying the Tory party were centre-right...let's be fair here: economically, the Tories have been far right since Thatcher. I don't think there's any further right it's possible to go. Blair's Labour were pretty left of centre economically (well, they did have Brown in charge, who is definitely old Labour).

I just feel like there is a level of political illiteracy in the world, and it's understandable.

On Starmer, I feel like he's needed to make some decisions he would have wanted to leave alone in an ideal world, while he's been naive with the press and with comms. And unless he manages to make drastic changes to the balance of work in the UK, he's going to be struggling. Luckily the Tories have Karen Badandyuck...so it's not like he's going to lose.

At present, I'm not worried about him losing to the Tories.

The Telegraph are currently flying a kite of outright support of Reform. They're very close as a party to a genuine inflection point where enough people believe they're a viable option that they become a viable option.

Puja

[Stom]

Blair would always have been a good fit for the Tory party. The tragedy for the UK is that he was in the Labour party. Instead of keeping the Tories on the centre-right/right he ruined the Labour party, making it centre-right, destroyed the UK's hopes for any left-wing government and cemented neoliberalism here.

I don't see how it's possible to say that Blair moved the Labour party to the centre-right, while saying the Tory party were centre-right...let's be fair here: economically, the Tories have been far right since Thatcher. I don't think there's any further right it's possible to go. Blair's Labour were pretty left of centre economically (well, they did have Brown in charge, who is definitely old Labour).

I just feel like there is a level of political illiteracy in the world, and it's understandable.

On Starmer, I feel like he's needed to make some decisions he would have wanted to leave alone in an ideal world, while he's been naive with the press and with comms. And unless he manages to make drastic changes to the balance of work in the UK, he's going to be struggling. Luckily the Tories have Karen Badandyuck...so it's not like he's going to lose.

At present, I'm not worried about him losing to the Tories.

The Telegraph are currently flying a kite of outright support of Reform. They're very close as a party to a genuine inflection point where enough people believe they're a viable option that they become a viable option.

Puja

Meh. Again, not bothered at this stage of the election cycle, and with the potential for major changes in world politics over the coming 3 years. I, for one, feel like there's a change brewing, as the workplace has turned toxic in many, many countries, and as these 17-20 year old kids enter the workplace in the coming years, we're going to see some big changes.

We're (because not all of us are boomers like Banquo , most of us are millennial, right?) going to be shown up badly in our work ethic by these zoomer kids who have grown up in a very different world culture to us, or to the Gen Xers who are starting to find themselves in upper management positions.

[Puja]

I don't see how it's possible to say that Blair moved the Labour party to the centre-right, while saying the Tory party were centre-right...let's be fair here: economically, the Tories have been far right since Thatcher. I don't think there's any further right it's possible to go. Blair's Labour were pretty left of centre economically (well, they did have Brown in charge, who is definitely old Labour).

I just feel like there is a level of political illiteracy in the world, and it's understandable.

On Starmer, I feel like he's needed to make some decisions he would have wanted to leave alone in an ideal world, while he's been naive with the press and with comms. And unless he manages to make drastic changes to the balance of work in the UK, he's going to be struggling. Luckily the Tories have Karen Badandyuck...so it's not like he's going to lose.

At present, I'm not worried about him losing to the Tories.

The Telegraph are currently flying a kite of outright support of Reform. They're very close as a party to a genuine inflection point where enough people believe they're a viable option that they become a viable option.

Puja

Meh. Again, not bothered at this stage of the election cycle, and with the potential for major changes in world politics over the coming 3 years. I, for one, feel like there's a change brewing, as the workplace has turned toxic in many, many countries, and as these 17-20 year old kids enter the workplace in the coming years, we're going to see some big changes.

We're (because not all of us are boomers like Banquo , most of us are millennial, right?) going to be shown up badly in our work ethic by these zoomer kids who have grown up in a very different world culture to us, or to the Gen Xers who are starting to find themselves in upper management positions.

I admire your optimism. I don't personally see a way out of this spiral before things get much, much worse.

And yes, Millennial here, reporting for duty with my avocado toast.

Puja

[Banquo]

At present, I'm not worried about him losing to the Tories.

The Telegraph are currently flying a kite of outright support of Reform. They're very close as a party to a genuine inflection point where enough people believe they're a viable option that they become a viable option.

Puja

Meh. Again, not bothered at this stage of the election cycle, and with the potential for major changes in world politics over the coming 3 years. I, for one, feel like there's a change brewing, as the workplace has turned toxic in many, many countries, and as these 17-20 year old kids enter the workplace in the coming years, we're going to see some big changes.

We're (because not all of us are boomers like Banquo , most of us are millennial, right?) going to be shown up badly in our work ethic by these zoomer kids who have grown up in a very different world culture to us, or to the Gen Xers who are starting to find themselves in upper management positions.

I admire your optimism. I don't personally see a way out of this spiral before things get much, much worse.

And yes, Millennial here, reporting for duty with my avocado toast.

Puja

Just had my cheese sandwich, crisps and snickers.

But I can move with the times; also had a kiwi fruit.

[Mellsblue]

Meh. Again, not bothered at this stage of the election cycle, and with the potential for major changes in world politics over the coming 3 years. I, for one, feel like there's a change brewing, as the workplace has turned toxic in many, many countries, and as these 17-20 year old kids enter the workplace in the coming years, we're going to see some big changes.

We're (because not all of us are boomers like Banquo , most of us are millennial, right?) going to be shown up badly in our work ethic by these zoomer kids who have grown up in a very different world culture to us, or to the Gen Xers who are starting to find themselves in upper management positions.

I admire your optimism. I don't personally see a way out of this spiral before things get much, much worse.

And yes, Millennial here, reporting for duty with my avocado toast.

Puja

Just had my cheese sandwich, crisps and snickers.

But I can move with the times; also had a kiwi fruit.

Kiwi fruit?!?!? Living off your inflated house price you did nothing to earn or deserve. You boomer, you.

[Banquo]

I admire your optimism. I don't personally see a way out of this spiral before things get much, much worse.

And yes, Millennial here, reporting for duty with my avocado toast.

Puja

Just had my cheese sandwich, crisps and snickers.

But I can move with the times; also had a kiwi fruit.

Kiwi fruit?!?!? Living off your inflated house price you did nothing to earn or deserve. You boomer, you.

I knows it.

[Puja]

Gods I hate the taste of avocado. Have to eat it though - for the branding.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

Gen X here, sitting in the middle, confused by both sides, but trying to make allowances

[Son of Mathonwy]

lol, I wouldn’t put it that way. I think everyone else would consider my economic ideas as extremely radical… just different from yours. Less…traditional.

But I don’t think you can compare. Sure, a leader with the press on side would be incredible. But you can’t transport Blair to today and expect him to have that. The press are not what they were in 1997. Outside of the likes of the granuaid, NYT, Der Spiegel, and Le Monde, nearly every publication has a right wing tinge, while the popularity of alternative media sources whose only purpose is clicks to make money, meaning that the political landscape has been fractured.

No, Blair would not have the same impact, he was of his time. And as we’ve seen, 2020s Blair wouldn’t look out of place as leader of the Tory party…

Blair would always have been a good fit for the Tory party. The tragedy for the UK is that he was in the Labour party. Instead of keeping the Tories on the centre-right/right he ruined the Labour party, making it centre-right, destroyed the UK's hopes for any left-wing government and cemented neoliberalism here.

I don't see how it's possible to say that Blair moved the Labour party to the centre-right, while saying the Tory party were centre-right...let's be fair here: economically, the Tories have been far right since Thatcher. I don't think there's any further right it's possible to go. Blair's Labour were pretty left of centre economically (well, they did have Brown in charge, who is definitely old Labour).

I just feel like there is a level of political illiteracy in the world, and it's understandable.

On Starmer, I feel like he's needed to make some decisions he would have wanted to leave alone in an ideal world, while he's been naive with the press and with comms. And unless he manages to make drastic changes to the balance of work in the UK, he's going to be struggling. Luckily the Tories have Karen Badandyuck...so it's not like he's going to lose.

Well, I said the Tories were centre-right/right - admittedly more right than centre-right, but they definitely had both elements in the 90s. Centre-right has been thoroughly purged now of course.

I think it's a sign of how far the Overton window has moved that you can think New Labour was left of centre or that Brown was definitely old labour(!). New Labour made no big changes from Thatcher's neo liberalism, just softened it a little. Taxes stayed low, spending increased just a bit, privatised companies remained privatised, in fact they even privatised British Rail. Brown presided over the very light-touch regulation of the FSA, which led to the Credit Crunch hitting the UK much harder than it would otherwise have.

Labour is polling pretty much level with the Tories, so although Badenoch certainly has the capacity to crash and burn, I wouldn't bet against her beating Starmer next time. Anyway, it's all really down to how the Reform/Tory nightmare resolves itself in the next five years. If the right join forces they'll probably win.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Gen X here, sitting in the middle, confused by both sides, but trying to make allowances

Same here, trying to wrack my brain to recall those pre-Thatcher times. And prog rock.

[Banquo]

Gen X here, sitting in the middle, confused by both sides, but trying to make allowances

Same here, trying to wrack my brain to recall those pre-Thatcher times. And prog rock.

I wouldn’t try and remember pre Thatcher times or prog rock. Both were shit

[Son of Mathonwy]

Gen X here, sitting in the middle, confused by both sides, but trying to make allowances

Same here, trying to wrack my brain to recall those pre-Thatcher times. And prog rock.

I wouldn’t try and remember pre Thatcher times or prog rock. Both were shit

Your memory of pre-Thatcher times is a bit shaky.

Your memory of prog is self-evidently fucked.

[Banquo]

Same here, trying to wrack my brain to recall those pre-Thatcher times. And prog rock.

I wouldn’t try and remember pre Thatcher times or prog rock. Both were shit

Your memory of pre-Thatcher times is a bit shaky.

Your memory of prog is self-evidently fucked.

Nah mate, the mid to late 60's were ok because of the Beatles; 70-79 was absolutely sh8t- the country was disintegrating even more rapidly than 65-70, all progressive ideas were scuppered by the trade unions and by three godawful governments, we had to borrow a load of money from the IMF, oil prices sky rocketed, NI 'Troubles'......but more especially, England had a lot of good rugby players but no idea what to do with them. Prog Rock is shit, with the exception of King Crimson possibly. The Clash were great though at the other end of the spectrum. I quite enjoyed the 70's in fairness, apart from 74/75 when my father died, having been effectively forced to leave the country by Healey's tax regime; came back in 75, discovered booze and fags etc so all ok for me, whilst the country around was dying, then punk, then winter of discontent which lead to Thatch. Then I was at university so happy days

How old were you in 1978 btw?

[Sandydragon]

Gods I hate the taste of avocado. Have to eat it though - for the branding.

Puja

Avocado on toast is a great recipe. Nice to be able to agree with the kids on something.

[Sandydragon]

I don't see how it's possible to say that Blair moved the Labour party to the centre-right, while saying the Tory party were centre-right...let's be fair here: economically, the Tories have been far right since Thatcher. I don't think there's any further right it's possible to go. Blair's Labour were pretty left of centre economically (well, they did have Brown in charge, who is definitely old Labour).

I just feel like there is a level of political illiteracy in the world, and it's understandable.

On Starmer, I feel like he's needed to make some decisions he would have wanted to leave alone in an ideal world, while he's been naive with the press and with comms. And unless he manages to make drastic changes to the balance of work in the UK, he's going to be struggling. Luckily the Tories have Karen Badandyuck...so it's not like he's going to lose.

At present, I'm not worried about him losing to the Tories.

The Telegraph are currently flying a kite of outright support of Reform. They're very close as a party to a genuine inflection point where enough people believe they're a viable option that they become a viable option.

Puja

Meh. Again, not bothered at this stage of the election cycle, and with the potential for major changes in world politics over the coming 3 years. I, for one, feel like there's a change brewing, as the workplace has turned toxic in many, many countries, and as these 17-20 year old kids enter the workplace in the coming years, we're going to see some big changes.

We're (because not all of us are boomers like Banquo , most of us are millennial, right?) going to be shown up badly in our work ethic by these zoomer kids who have grown up in a very different world culture to us, or to the Gen Xers who are starting to find themselves in upper management positions.

I'd be more worried about young people being influenced by some very unsavoury bastards. Large numbers of under 25s voted for Trump. I don't think that's a fluke

[Son of Mathonwy]

I wouldn’t try and remember pre Thatcher times or prog rock. Both were shit

Your memory of pre-Thatcher times is a bit shaky.

Your memory of prog is self-evidently fucked.

Nah mate, the mid to late 60's were ok because of the Beatles; 70-79 was absolutely sh8t- the country was disintegrating even more rapidly than 65-70, all progressive ideas were scuppered by the trade unions and by three godawful governments, we had to borrow a load of money from the IMF, oil prices sky rocketed, NI 'Troubles'......but more especially, England had a lot of good rugby players but no idea what to do with them. Prog Rock is shit, with the exception of King Crimson possibly. The Clash were great though at the other end of the spectrum. I quite enjoyed the 70's in fairness, apart from 74/75 when my father died, having been effectively forced to leave the country by Healey's tax regime; came back in 75, discovered booze and fags etc so all ok for me, whilst the country around was dying, then punk, then winter of discontent which lead to Thatch. Then I was at university so happy days

How old were you in 1978 btw?

I was born at the end of the 60s so don't remember and of that or the early 70s. Prog rock had already finished long before I got into Genesis and Yes. I didn't pay any attention to politics till the 90s and was still pretty clueless about it for most of that decade. It's taken me a long time to get to the 100% flawless political views I hold now .

But I do remember Wales kicking ass in the 70s, which explains my eternally unreasonable expectations.