The Labour Government

[mosssideblue]

You’ve not seen what’s happening around the world, what Russia is doing or what China is threatening?

If you don’t see a need for deterrent, probably why it’s not being debated. JC asked a similar question this evening, which I thought Healey answered very well.

Of course I see the change in the world, and the need to continue with Trident, but I don’t understand the need to modify the warheads or what role these additional nuc subs will play. And, how are we going to man these new platforms, that’s the detail I was alluding to

 

[hilts]

Certainly not , but give them a chance and if they fuck it up I’ll be front of the queue. But the way the media have swept away the fucking disaster of Johnson and Truss is unbelievable.

The media and its audience move on pretty quickly nowadays, covid gets replaced by Ukraine, Ukraine by Israel, Israel by the return of Trump...........

Its down to the electorate to remember Johnson and Truss, i cerrainly will, what they remember of Starmer is yet to be determined

We cannot expect them to change the country this quick but they can be judged both good and bad on somethings.they have done.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Of course I see the change in the world, and the need to continue with Trident, but I don’t understand the need to modify the warheads or what role these additional nuc subs will play. And, how are we going to man these new platforms, that’s the detail I was alluding to

Get it, mate. I’ve had many arguments WRT recruiting policy and the shite that the PR people serve up. But, before that, you have to have a package that is competitive, which includes living standards. Defence have addressed a couple of the problems with bringing the joining salary up to the NMW, and with fairly decent pay rises over the last couple of years, they now need to address the accommodation issues, and patriotic/pride issues that the PR people have failed to tap into.

A very long way to go, for Government and Defence. Let’s see if they can get there.

 

[Rascal]

Not been on for a while, so missed a lot of posts.

I always want a Labour government, but Starmer's iteration of a Labour government is basically Blue Labour.

A quote from Blue Labours website


"The Blue in Blue Labour represents our disenchantment with the progressive politics of the past few decades. Things do not always get better. In recent years it has sometimes felt as though Britain is coming apart at the seams. The basics of life are increasingly out of reach. Infrastructure is crumbling or non-existent and our town centres lie neglected. Energy is expensive and we do not produce nearly enough of it. Rent and house prices are eye-watering."


Whilst people will look at that statement and nod along, i take issue with its dislike of progressive values, it almost sounds like the words Farage comes out with it.

Since the media destroyed Corbyn we do not have a radical left alternative to the neo-liberal status quo. Blue Labour and it acolytes are not Socialists they are liberals who lean left on social issues but are very far right on economic issues, just like the Liberals were under Clegg and his lunatic econonic guru David Law with is Orange book liberalism.


As a person on the left i am very worried, this government does not give a fck about the working class and that is soul destroying. Alabour Party that does not care about the old, the disabled, the kids, its not a Labour party i can ever support or one i could never imagine happening.

fuck off Starmer you are a ****.

 

[inbetween]

Huge SDR published today and what I can see on here is, well, nothing.

Good or bad thing?

Sorry for being a distraction to the distraction.

There isn't really any meat on the bones. There is no commitment to further Typhoon aircraft for example when the other 3 nations have invested heavily. Huge new programmes such as FCAS are similarly barely really mentioned so it's unclear what they're actually going to do.

A second problem is they've based the plan on 3% GDP spending but they've only committed to increase defence spending to 2.5% spending by 2027. It's not really clear where the 0.5% is coming from or precisely when or what it will be used for.

The language is imminent war but the objectives of this review seemingly won't even begin until after 2030 so we should hope that our adversaries can hold off until then...

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

There isn't really any meat on the bones. There is no commitment to further Typhoon aircraft for example when the other 3 nations have invested heavily. Huge new programmes such as FCAS are similarly barely really mentioned so it's unclear what they're actually going to do.

A second problem is they've based the plan on 3% GDP spending but they've only committed to increase defence spending to 2.5% spending by 2027. It's not really clear where the 0.5% is coming from or precisely when or what it will be used for.

The language is imminent war but the objectives of this review seemingly won't even begin until after 2030 so we should hope that our adversaries can hold off until then...

This is the problem when it comes to these reviews. What we see from the media is how this is funded, like a fiscal statement review, whereas this isn’t the case. An SDR should be separate from government spend and be what exactly what it says on the tin, a strategy.

With this review, unlike under previous draw-down of Defence due to specific budget requirements set by the then government, it has been allowed to draw on thousands of witnesses/experts to drive future change.

These reports should not be driven by the treasury, they should be driven by the requirement. Glad to see that this has been allowed to happen, letting the people that know get the truth out.

As for FCAS, I’m no expert but do remember the government pledging huge amounts to the system. That would say to me that they are confident in the program.

 

[bluethrunthru]

something else SKY or the Mail etc won't tell you

Spending on agency staff across NHS in England drops by almost £1bn

Exclusive: Cost-saving for 2024-25 follows pledge by Wes Streeting to cut the amount going to agencies by 30%

www.theguardian.com

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

something else SKY or the Mail etc won't tell you

Spending on agency staff across NHS in England drops by almost £1bn

Exclusive: Cost-saving for 2024-25 follows pledge by Wes Streeting to cut the amount going to agencies by 30%

www.theguardian.com

As long as we are still looking after our people, that money can be spent elsewhere.

 

[inbetween]

This is the problem when it comes to these reviews. What we see from the media is how this is funded, like a fiscal statement review, whereas this isn’t the case. An SDR should be separate from government spend and be what exactly what it says on the tin, a strategy.

With this review, unlike under previous draw-down of Defence due to specific budget requirements set by the then government, it has been allowed to draw on thousands of witnesses/experts to drive future change.

These reports should not be driven by the treasury, they should be driven by the requirement. Glad to see that this has been allowed to happen, letting the people that know get the truth out.

As for FCAS, I’m no expert but do remember the government pledging huge amounts to the system. That would say to me that they are confident in the program.

I understand the need to set priorities for the future but that's where this falls down. It talks up a war-footing but the specifics mentioned are on anything but a war-footing level, it's far too glacial and vague. Any fool with an ounce of marketing sense could have written it.

If it's intended to lack specifics and then go on to spend 5 years figuring out what those specifics are, what's the point if they can't be delivered? That isn't a strategy because in the meantime we will have seemingly been invaded or blown up. I think we know full well that the shelf life of any government is less than that anyway.

I think hollow is the best word for it and that sums this up as a political piece as opposed to a strategy.

 

[Vic]

Not been on for a while, so missed a lot of posts.

I always want a Labour government, but Starmer's iteration of a Labour government is basically Blue Labour.

A quote from Blue Labours website


"The Blue in Blue Labour represents our disenchantment with the progressive politics of the past few decades. Things do not always get better. In recent years it has sometimes felt as though Britain is coming apart at the seams. The basics of life are increasingly out of reach. Infrastructure is crumbling or non-existent and our town centres lie neglected. Energy is expensive and we do not produce nearly enough of it. Rent and house prices are eye-watering."


Whilst people will look at that statement and nod along, i take issue with its dislike of progressive values, it almost sounds like the words Farage comes out with it.

Since the media destroyed Corbyn we do not have a radical left alternative to the neo-liberal status quo. Blue Labour and it acolytes are not Socialists they are liberals who lean left on social issues but are very far right on economic issues, just like the Liberals were under Clegg and his lunatic econonic guru David Law with is Orange book liberalism.


As a person on the left i am very worried, this government does not give a fck about the working class and that is soul destroying. Alabour Party that does not care about the old, the disabled, the kids, its not a Labour party i can ever support or one i could never imagine happening.

fuck off Starmer you are a ****.

I'd never heard of Blue Labour till now so had to look it up. If you think that's what Starmer is, you don't really get what Blue Labour is about.

"Writing in the Daily Mail recently, former Corbynite MP Dan Carden called himself the leader of the Blue Labour group in parliament (which, according to Wikipedia, has a grand total of three other members), advocating for a policy of re-industrialisation, immigration controls and universities being replaced by technical vocational colleges. In other words: turning the clock back to 1962, before globalisation and the expansion of universities spoiled everything."

Their "programme" sounds more your view than Starmer's.

'Progressivism or bust: Why Blue Labour is the wrong answer to Reform surge' - LabourList

Callaghan lost the support of his own base while losing the 1979 election to Thatcher. Any Labour government that tries to follow the Blue Labour formula is likely to end the same way.

labourlist.org

 

[metalblue]

Not been on for a while, so missed a lot of posts.

I always want a Labour government, but Starmer's iteration of a Labour government is basically Blue Labour.

A quote from Blue Labours website


"The Blue in Blue Labour represents our disenchantment with the progressive politics of the past few decades. Things do not always get better. In recent years it has sometimes felt as though Britain is coming apart at the seams. The basics of life are increasingly out of reach. Infrastructure is crumbling or non-existent and our town centres lie neglected. Energy is expensive and we do not produce nearly enough of it. Rent and house prices are eye-watering."


Whilst people will look at that statement and nod along, i take issue with its dislike of progressive values, it almost sounds like the words Farage comes out with it.

Since the media destroyed Corbyn we do not have a radical left alternative to the neo-liberal status quo. Blue Labour and it acolytes are not Socialists they are liberals who lean left on social issues but are very far right on economic issues, just like the Liberals were under Clegg and his lunatic econonic guru David Law with is Orange book liberalism.


As a person on the left i am very worried, this government does not give a fck about the working class and that is soul destroying. Alabour Party that does not care about the old, the disabled, the kids, its not a Labour party i can ever support or one i could never imagine happening.

fuck off Starmer you are a ****.

Nice to see you Russ, miss your posts mate.

The whole thing is a bit of a mess really. You’ve got a government whom lack any sort of DNA so are just bumbling along with only those who would vote for a pig with a red rosette on seemingly happy, a Tory party who are invisible, a reform party who aren’t invisible so are effectively the opposition and a Lib Dem party who are like nodding dogs.

Starmer needs a reshuffle but he wont survive binning off Reeves so I don’t see him being radical enough to make any difference. The tories need to get a new leader but that’ll just signal more chaos.

Next election, although a way off, already feels a bit worrying.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

I understand the need to set priorities for the future but that's where this falls down. It talks up a war-footing but the specifics mentioned are on anything but a war-footing level, it's far too glacial and vague. Any fool with an ounce of marketing sense could have written it.

If it's intended to lack specifics and then go on to spend 5 years figuring out what those specifics are, what's the point if they can't be delivered? That isn't a strategy because in the meantime we will have seemingly been invaded or blown up. I think we know full well that the shelf life of any government is less than that anyway.

I think hollow is the best word for it and that sums this up as a political piece as opposed to a strategy.

You don’t see it, I disagree. It’s an independent review, and like all reviews, it’s up to the government of the time to determine what can, and cannot be done. We now see what they will deliver, nothing more.

What interests me is that nobody gave a fuck about this for years. The government then commission this review and guarantee 2.5% of GDP, which is a commitment in itself, then all we hear about is ‘What about 3%?’.

In this current world, nobody can guarantee what will happen tomorrow, never mind in 10 years, but at least we have a commitment of ‘We will’ deliver, and that’s what they ‘Will be’ accountable for.

 

[bluethrunthru]

You don’t see it, I disagree. It’s an independent review, and like all reviews, it’s up to the government of the time to determine what can, and cannot be done. We now see what they will deliver, nothing more.

What interests me is that nobody gave a fuck about this for years. The government then commission this review and guarantee 2.5% of GDP, which is a commitment in itself, then all we hear about is ‘What about 3%?’.

In this current world, nobody can guarantee what will happen tomorrow, never mind in 10 years, but at least we have a commitment of ‘We will’ deliver, and that’s what they ‘Will be’ accountable for.

all I have seen on the TV and in the press is "journalists" bad mouthing the Govt commitment on defence. Thats the same press that cheered on 14 years of Tory Govt slash and burn on defence because it meant possible tax cuts. As I type on SKY News they are asking "do people want taxes spent on weapons that kill people" - they'd fucking change their tune if a Russian rocket landed on London. I really don't know why Labour humour some outlets and give them interviews - Starmer could go on TV and say to kick start the economy by stopping all spending for a month and giving everyone in the country £10k. All the TV and newspapers would say is "Starmer stops benefits for OAP's for a month and replaces them with a payment of just £10k. Why not £50k? Martin Lewis explains on page 30"

 

[BlueHammer85]

all I have seen on the TV and in the press is "journalists" bad mouthing the Govt commitment on defence. Thats the same press that cheered on 14 years of Tory Govt slash and burn on defence because it meant possible tax cuts. As I type on SKY News they are asking "do people want taxes spent on weapons that kill people" - they'd fucking change their tune if a Russian rocket landed on London. I really don't know why Labour humour some outlets and give them interviews - Starmer could go on TV and say to kick start the economy by stopping all spending for a month and giving everyone in the country £10k. All the TV and newspapers would say is "Starmer stops benefits for OAP's for a month and replaces them with a payment of just £10k. Why not £50k? Martin Lewis explains on page 30"

It's impossible for Labour, forever attacked from all angles no matter what choices they make. suppose that's politics nowadays, shame - no one wants what's best for their country anymore.

 

[inbetween]

all I have seen on the TV and in the press is "journalists" bad mouthing the Govt commitment on defence. Thats the same press that cheered on 14 years of Tory Govt slash and burn on defence because it meant possible tax cuts. As I type on SKY News they are asking "do people want taxes spent on weapons that kill people" - they'd fucking change their tune if a Russian rocket landed on London. I really don't know why Labour humour some outlets and give them interviews - Starmer could go on TV and say to kick start the economy by stopping all spending for a month and giving everyone in the country £10k. All the TV and newspapers would say is "Starmer stops benefits for OAP's for a month and replaces them with a payment of just £10k. Why not £50k? Martin Lewis explains on page 30"

Is it not a valid question to ask where the 0.5% of GDP is going to come from? That's £17bn in today's money. Given the current environment where we've only seen tax increases and benefit cuts, surely people have a right to ask?

Not only do we not know how that extra money is being funded but we also don't know what it will be used for. Would you like us to order more F-35's from the Trump administration? Obviously there is Chagos too, something the public largely disagrees with and the cost of which will apparently sit within the defence budget.

There are no new commitments to existing programmes such as Eurofighter where the other European nations are investing heavily in upgrades and new aircraft. The RAF will be butchered over the next 5 years as older Typhoon aircraft are retired for scrap or offered at zero cost to places like Turkey. None of this is even mentioned.

It seems to me that this is nothing more than a careful marketing piece to appear strong but as ever the devil is in the detail and that's what's really important. I'm not interested in what the Tories did, Labour are in government and to be strong on defence they have to deliver on defence but this pushes the 'delivered' stuff to at least 5 years time. Everything else is pretty much the same or worse.

 

[hilts]

Not been on for a while, so missed a lot of posts.

I always want a Labour government, but Starmer's iteration of a Labour government is basically Blue Labour.

A quote from Blue Labours website


"The Blue in Blue Labour represents our disenchantment with the progressive politics of the past few decades. Things do not always get better. In recent years it has sometimes felt as though Britain is coming apart at the seams. The basics of life are increasingly out of reach. Infrastructure is crumbling or non-existent and our town centres lie neglected. Energy is expensive and we do not produce nearly enough of it. Rent and house prices are eye-watering."


Whilst people will look at that statement and nod along, i take issue with its dislike of progressive values, it almost sounds like the words Farage comes out with it.

Since the media destroyed Corbyn we do not have a radical left alternative to the neo-liberal status quo. Blue Labour and it acolytes are not Socialists they are liberals who lean left on social issues but are very far right on economic issues, just like the Liberals were under Clegg and his lunatic econonic guru David Law with is Orange book liberalism.


As a person on the left i am very worried, this government does not give a fck about the working class and that is soul destroying. Alabour Party that does not care about the old, the disabled, the kids, its not a Labour party i can ever support or one i could never imagine happening.

fuck off Starmer you are a ****.

I hope the description of Blue Labour gets you less moaning than my outlandish claim of 'purple' or Tory wets for this lot.

An outlandish claim on a mix of red and blue to describe the current policy makers:-)

 

[hilts]

I'd never heard of Blue Labour till now so had to look it up. If you think that's what Starmer is, you don't really get what Blue Labour is about.

"Writing in the Daily Mail recently, former Corbynite MP Dan Carden called himself the leader of the Blue Labour group in parliament (which, according to Wikipedia, has a grand total of three other members), advocating for a policy of re-industrialisation, immigration controls and universities being replaced by technical vocational colleges. In other words: turning the clock back to 1962, before globalisation and the expansion of universities spoiled everything."

Their "programme" sounds more your view than Starmer's.

'Progressivism or bust: Why Blue Labour is the wrong answer to Reform surge' - LabourList

Callaghan lost the support of his own base while losing the 1979 election to Thatcher. Any Labour government that tries to follow the Blue Labour formula is likely to end the same way.

labourlist.org

Im sure Starmer recently gave a speech about immigration being too high:-)

Are you saying he is even more Blue than Blue Labour or are Blue Labour not actually Blue at all?

Complicated stuff

 

[bluethrunthru]

Is it not a valid question to ask where the 0.5% of GDP is going to come from? That's £17bn in today's money. Given the current environment where we've only seen tax increases and benefit cuts, surely people have a right to ask?

Not only do we not know how that extra money is being funded but we also don't know what it will be used for. Would you like us to order more F-35's from the Trump administration? Obviously there is Chagos too, something the public largely disagrees with and the cost of which will apparently sit within the defence budget.

There are no new commitments to existing programmes such as Eurofighter where the other European nations are investing heavily in upgrades and new aircraft. The RAF will be butchered over the next 5 years as older Typhoon aircraft are retired for scrap or offered at zero cost to places like Turkey. None of this is even mentioned.

It seems to me that this is nothing more than a careful marketing piece to appear strong but as ever the devil is in the detail and that's what's really important. I'm not interested in what the Tories did, Labour are in government and to be strong on defence they have to deliver on defence but this pushes the 'delivered' stuff to at least 5 years time. Everything else is pretty much the same or worse.

even if it were to be a "marketing piece" you cannot ignore the fact that under the last lot it would have been lauded to the heavens no questions asked by our press

 

[hilts]

even if it were to be a "marketing piece" you cannot ignore the fact that under the last lot it would have been lauded to the heavens no questions asked by our press

Some not all, this obsession with the right wing press needs to calm down a tad, there were questions asked regularly by the press/media on the last lot.

 

[BobKowalski]

Is it not a valid question to ask where the 0.5% of GDP is going to come from? That's £17bn in today's money. Given the current environment where we've only seen tax increases and benefit cuts, surely people have a right to ask?

Not only do we not know how that extra money is being funded but we also don't know what it will be used for. Would you like us to order more F-35's from the Trump administration? Obviously there is Chagos too, something the public largely disagrees with and the cost of which will apparently sit within the defence budget.

There are no new commitments to existing programmes such as Eurofighter where the other European nations are investing heavily in upgrades and new aircraft. The RAF will be butchered over the next 5 years as older Typhoon aircraft are retired for scrap or offered at zero cost to places like Turkey. None of this is even mentioned.

It seems to me that this is nothing more than a careful marketing piece to appear strong but as ever the devil is in the detail and that's what's really important. I'm not interested in what the Tories did, Labour are in government and to be strong on defence they have to deliver on defence but this pushes the 'delivered' stuff to at least 5 years time. Everything else is pretty much the same or worse.

The public largely disagree with Chagos decision? What are they disagreeing over? Securing the use of a strategic military base for the next 100 years?