The Labour Government

[bluenova]

At which point does Starmer's position come under threat? He's presided over calamity after calamity. I know myself that if this was a Tory PM I'd be jumping up and down wanting him out

Most past PMs have been in awful positions at some point, particularly early in a Parliament.

Margaret Thatcher was third place in the polls, two years into her first term. At one point, the Alliance had a 27% lead in the polls.

It's only really since 2019 that we've had so many leaders leaving/being pushed out in a short space of time, and frankly I doubt even the most rabid will look back and think that four PMs in less than 4 years was a good idea.

Given Labour have always been banking on the changes they're making achieving results by the end of the Parliament (building house, cutting waiting lists, cutting asylum claim times etc. take years), then, even if they wanted to go into the next election with a new leader, it makes sense to wait. Someone else coming in, can't speed up the changes in the NHS, or build houses more quickly, or make Parliament pass laws faster than it currently does - so they'd just be stuck in the same position. Reform aren't running away in the polls by any means, and the picture may be very different in a couple of years time.

 

[Dazzle84]

Until he opens a VIP lane and diddles £38B from the public purse or attempts to crash the economy like Truss, I’ll stick with him. Thanks.

Ok, so the bar is the absolute fuckery of the last lot?

I expected the bar to be much higher. I don't think I'm alone in that.

 

[Dazzle84]

Most past PMs have been in awful positions at some point, particularly early in a Parliament.

Margaret Thatcher was third place in the polls, two years into her first term. At one point, the Alliance had a 27% lead in the polls.

It's only really since 2019 that we've had so many leaders leaving/being pushed out in a short space of time, and frankly I doubt even the most rabid will look back and think that four PMs in less than 4 years was a good idea.

Given Labour have always been banking on the changes they're making achieving results by the end of the Parliament (building house, cutting waiting lists, cutting asylum claim times etc. take years), then, even if they wanted to go into the next election with a new leader, it makes sense to wait. Someone else coming in, can't speed up the changes in the NHS, or build houses more quickly, or make Parliament pass laws faster than it currently does - so they'd just be stuck in the same position. Reform aren't running away in the polls by any means, and the picture may be very different in a couple of years time.

Yeah, the 24hr news cycle and social media can't help. I suppose my frustration is I hoped for better. A bit of patience wouldn't go amiss I suppose

 

[mosssideblue]

Hasn't been a good 24hrs for him, has it? Welcoming a genocidal head of state into his office and his meek dismissal of a known associate of a sex criminal. Needs a massive turnaround or he's finished.

Wouldn't mind seeing Burnham take the helm.

Burnham isn’t an MP

 

[Norbert D]

Ok, so the bar is the absolute fuckery of the last lot?

I expected the bar to be much higher. I don't think I'm alone in that.

Yes the bar is pretty low.
Labour are shit at politics but their policies are pretty vanilla. The only alternative is that shithouse, poundshorting shapeshifter Farage or the hopeless bad Enoch. Sometimes the grass isn’t greener.

 

[Dazzle84]

Yes the bar is pretty low.
Labour are shit at politics but their policies are pretty vanilla. The only alternative is that shithouse, poundshorting shapeshifter Farage or the hopeless bad Enoch. Sometimes the grass isn’t greener.

Unless there's someone within the Labour party who can take the reins. Although as per another reply, I'll be a bit more patient to see if any of the longer term strategies look like bearing fruit

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

If Starmer goes the favourites for next Labour leader are in order of Betfair Betting, Streeting, Burnham, Jones, Mahmood, Rayner, Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Phillipson. Everyone else is 65/1 plus. Tories have all the usual names. Reform look to be in the position of the SNP once Sturgeon left, fucked. I've seen the new Greens leader interviewed, absolute tool. Lib Dems have Daisy Cooper nailed on to be their next leader.

There is no one in that lot who will get anywhere near uniting the country.

So so depressing

 

[metalblue]

O god we could all then get to witness the mass hypocrisy from both sides, when you will have right wingers demanding a general election and the left wingers saying you vote for your local MP not the leader. Where as the argument was flipped when the tories were in power during leadership changes.

Ha, no chance of an election if he does get replaced but we know Farage will be calling for one constantly. Not sure the tories will because they are still less popular than Labour and that’s some feat.

 

[Don Karleone]

Explain to me how this helps disabled people get back into work?

 

[M18CTID]

Can’t believe the grubby little fucker didn’t resign, and actually had to be pushed.

Get in the bin!

Probably thought being pally with Trump would make him unsackable!

 

[Kirkstall Blue]

Yes, and as others have already posted over the last few weeks (months probably, after all it just seems to be one shit show after the other),he really needs to get a grip on everything. Or "anything" to be brutally honest.
I wanted him to be PM, I wanted him to do well but to be a good PM you have to possess a certain nous and be able to take the public with you in pursuit of what you want to achieve.
He is failing in both.

Compared to the 14 years of the previous government I think he’s been okay, but with the media we have now he has to do more than okay, he’s made mistakes but he’s also done things I approve of.
As a country we deserve better than the choice of politicians we have to choose from

 

[mackenzie]

Compared to the 14 years of the previous government I think he’s been okay, but with the media we have now he has to do more than okay, he’s made mistakes but he’s also done things I approve of.
As a country we deserve better than the choice of politicians we have to choose from

I'm all for giving him more time; 15 months isn't near long enough. However, he isn't impressing me much at the moment.

 

[M18CTID]

I think the issue now doing the rounds is how much Starmer knew before re Mandelson. Think that's going to be the problem for him.

What ultimately did for Johnson was how much he knew about Pincher so it’ll be interesting to see how much Starmer knew about Mandelson’s links to Epstein.

 

[metalblue]

Do you think he wants to survive it?

Watching him at PMQs yesterday he seemed to be going through the motions- he’d obviously placed himself in a terrible position, but it was difficult to detect any real conviction in what he was saying or indeed any real determination to stand up to what Badenoch was saying to him.

He’s rarely seen in the UK, he doesn’t appear keen to have any real domestic visibility and he only really appears to enjoy it when he’s out of the country working on matters that aren’t really party political.

Wouldn’t surprise me in the least if he walks at some point in the next few months.

Yes mate I absolutely think he wants to carry on. He’s just a bit shit at it.

 

[Don Karleone]

Reusing the "it didn't cross my desk" excuse. He knew ffs. Every shitposter on the internet knew.

 

[Postman Pep]

Agreed. The political antenna of the Labour leadership and inability to sell a narrative is astonishingly bad. Too many unforced errors.

Like appointing a known associate of an infamous trafficker of children as an ambassador to a country where a president was elected on the back of, amongst many other things, Epstein 'truthism'.
You were still calling it a "smart move" yesterday.

 

[johnny crossan]

Mandy is the poster boy for this Adam Curtis episode

The Century of the Self - 4. Eight People Sipping Wine in Kettering

This episode looks at how both the UK Labour Party and US Democrats have used psychoanalytic techniques - namely, focus groups - to mislead and gain power over the masses.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Vic]

Explain to me how this helps disabled people get back into work?

The concession scheme was a Labour invention. It was never intended for elderly or disabled people to use it to commute to work. Most councils do allow pre-0930 travel but it's at a cost (to add to the cost of recompensing the bus companies for loss of revenue) which, after the inadequate reimbursement to the councils by central government, comes out of Council Tax. That's on top of the cost of subbing the maximum £3 fare for all bus passengers.

If the government change the rules, they (we) would have to pay the cost (including for the councils that cover the cost now).

That said, it's probably under 100 million pounds a year. Another decision like the Winter Fuel payment (a lot of flack for saving not that much).

But why this petition now? Were they really waiting 14 years for what they thought might be a more sympathetic government?

Anyway, the big issue with the concessionary bus scheme is why so few people are using it. Usage has dropped by over a third since Covid - either old people are still edgy about travel in busy buses, or most pensioners are rich enough to keep using the car rather than take a free bus.

(Sorry - the answer to your question is that it doesn't!)

 

[TinFoilHat]

Can Starmer appoint Andy Burnham as the replacement in Washington - PLEASE.

According to Popbitch it's going to be George Osborne.

He's Bessie mates with Vance...

 

[Don Karleone]

The concession scheme was a Labour invention. It was never intended for elderly or disabled people to use it to commute to work. Most councils do allow pre-0930 travel but it's at a cost (to add to the cost of recompensing the bus companies for loss of revenue) which, after the inadequate reimbursement to the councils by central government, comes out of Council Tax. That's on top of the cost of subbing the maximum £3 fare for all bus passengers.

If the government change the rules, they (we) would have to pay the cost (including for the councils that cover the cost now).

That said, it's probably under 100 million pounds a year. Another decision like the Winter Fuel payment (a lot of flack for saving not that much).

But why this petition now? Were they really waiting 14 years for what they thought might be a more sympathetic government?

Anyway, the big issue with the concessionary bus scheme is why so few people are using it. Usage has dropped by over a third since Covid - either old people are still edgy about travel in busy buses, or most pensioners are rich enough to keep using the car rather than take a free bus.

(Sorry - the answer to your question is that it doesn't!)

I would think that this has been tabled now because of this government's policy to get disabled people into work. If they can't even be bothered to ensure people can afford to get to their job, it implies that they don't actually care about the people they will force to find employment.

It would have been another easy win for them if they had allowed this.